Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

mat109

Members
  • Posts

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mat109

  1. 3 hours ago, btd1981 said:

    A younger friend in his late twenties, living in a spare room with his fiancee, is relentlessly optimistic.

    "You get out of life what you put in" He says.

    'Really...' I thinks....

    As a "youth" - mid-late twenties - who is going to pay for all the obscene prices when I'm 65(+) retired and a generation of the priced out have passed through. I hope noone.

    40 years is a long time. I'd rather hope something will turn up. Preferably before I have children.

    There's not really much else I can do other than worry about it until it affects mental health, which won't help me.

  2. 9 minutes ago, spyguy said:

    I really cannot stress how much control Brown asserted over the party. You either thought he was an unfallible Idol, or you were out, by fair (rarely) or foul (mostly).

     

    Read "the tragedy of power" - suggests that Tony was terrified of him.

    Apparently earlier prime ministers had the same problem, but Tony didn't know enough history or read anything about former prime ministers.

    It's a common theme with Tony. Iraq anyone?

  3. 3 minutes ago, Venger said:

    Which one Mat?  We should be worried about coming bailouts for the BTLers - and if doesn't occur - we need to devote our lives to the BTLers (many on the forums who believe they are the big-I-am to their tenants), who might go on to changed financial circumstances, and horror-of-horror, become renters like many on HPC have been for years?   Might as well just devote ourselves to the BTLers and be happy renters forever.  ForeverHPI!  Yes?  A BTLers pension with little security of tenure.

    I had no intention of provoking you into any sort of reaction and I'm sorry if I've wound you up. It wasn't my intention. I'd stopped posting when you said you didn't want to engage further in a previous post.

    Look - I'm all too aware of the young and priced out. I'm young-ish (mid-late twenties) and priced out (London) and paying up the rent as well, as are many of my friends. I had a question asked in parliament by Corbyn in his first question time  after deciding the embark on a letter writing campaign in 2015 over the housing crisis (I'm Matthew) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/14/pmqs-corbyn-accuses-cameron-limiting-life-chances-children . Shortly afterwards (looks like the day after, in fact - obviously I'd been inspired) I found HPC and have been lurking ever since. Make of it what you will, I'm not hugely pro labour/corbyn either but I had a staunchly Conservative MP at the time who wrote deeply unsatisfactory replies. It frustrates me that so few people my age don't get angrier.

    You'll note from my limited posts I take an interest in the tenant - landlord law, because it's the only way I have to improve my situation other than working and saving. I've extracted non-protected deposit compensation - easy to do - and enjoyed making more than one letting agent miserable by complaining loudly and winning each time.

    From the sympathy side - yes I'm a snowflake. I think someone in their 60s, 70s, 80s in a shit flat somewhere who can't afford to make more of their sunset years is a shame and that lady who lost her lot in "HPC-lite" and now spends her time bitter and twisted and pursuing restoration is a sad way to end a life. Other than the safety net of the benefits system the Government shouldn't get involved though. Few fear this, because they cannot see the risk (which when obvious they try and avoid - mention stocks etc.).

    Had she been better informed (note: not the same as education or intelligence), perhaps she wouldn't have gone all in - alternatives exist - but certain interests (builders, bankers etc.) have contrived to encourage her ilk which hurts everyone else. The BTLrs are unwitting pawns and agents.

    Who am I blaming? The groupthink which sees shelter as a one way bet which has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The longer it all goes on though, the more people in total get hurt - and yes, the madness needs to stop, and almost noone is going to have won out of it.

  4. 17 minutes ago, Damocles said:

    Two general points:

    1. Just because the view that inspection clauses are unenforceable is widespread does not mean it is correct.

    2. Legally, a breach of a term of a tenancy agreement by one party does not justify a breach by the other even if felt to be justified. It is important in a tenancy (or for that matter any) dispute not to do anything which may be seen to be abandoning the moral high ground.

    As to the specific point of whether inspection clauses are unenforceable, I have expressed my views in several threads and started one (which for the moment I cannot seem to find) which sets out my views in full. Since my opinion is that there are circumstances in which a right of inspection can be exercised the adjudicator's decision does not surprise me. It is precisely what I have warned tenants against.

    Non-legal view: I don't understand what loss the landlord suffered from not being allowed inspections - surely awards shouldn't happen if there are no damages?

    Also, I wouldn't rely entirely on an adjudicator for ruling that a clause is unenforceable. I don't think we've ever seen any precedent on the matter. You could always take it to court, but you might end up losing more than £500.

  5. 2 hours ago, Venger said:

    The very fact you (and many others it has to be said) see the BTLers as such mindless innocents, troubles me.

    This is - although perhaps clumsily put - my point. Go onto any BTL forum and marvel at their inability to string two sentences together or argue with any coherence, or make rational decisions. These aren't the creme of society, they are participants in a get rich quick scheme who lack the skills and empathy to see the danger.

    I wouldn't be too troubled. For me, It's an explanation of thier behaviour (poorly informed, greedy, stupid) rather than a justification or a reason to bail them out. I have sympathy for anyone who loses their shirt, even if they deserved it or spent said shirt on a socially damaging bandwagon. Doesn't mean I or anyone else have to pay for it. 

    However, if it becomes politically expedient, a politician will do anything, but with - as you say - a declining core vote and increasing public hostility towards BTLrs this seems unlikely.

    I completely agree with you that their effect on aggregate is destructive (many know this) and many individually abuse their position with a breathtaking lack of empathy.There is a thread (I can't find it now - possibly disappeared down the 'memory hole' they have over there) from 118 where BTLs discuss why they themselves would hate to rent which I found astounding.

  6. Quote

    BTL = high risk (unregulated until recently), ever higher prices, young priced out Generation Rent Forever - from my point of view, and those of all my renter-saver family and friends

    Totally agree. I meant from the perspective of the common BTLr, the property market has very little risk. Their worldview, not mine and one you commonly see on the forums.

    Quote

    Other people might have danced into BTL with world-view you suggest ("no risk - understand property") but that is their own sovereign market view.  Their choices and their decisions

    Yep. There's a good reason that unsophisticated investors shouldn't touch leverage stocks (myself included). They get burnt. IMO, this is going to happen with leveraged BTL - but in very, very slow motion. If I'd borrowed masses of money to buy BT stocks last night (down 15% this morning), i wouldn't expect any pity or special pleading this morning.

    Problem is, there is a political risk that the Government takes pity and decides that these investors should be treated otherwise ('missold' BTL). 

    Only thing for it is to moan, moan, moan (with pride). We're getting there.

    BTL overlords no longer proudly announce their 'habit' at social events - at least to me, someone under 30. Comments in the Daily Mail are mostly anti-HPI. Forward thinking politicians are falling over themselves to be seen to build (which implicitly means they think house prices are too high, even if the fixes seem ridiculous). Labour are actually talking about it, a change from the Bliar years. 

  7. 2 hours ago, nome said:

    Already got one BTL which hasn't worked out, a large mortgage on their own home, going through a separation AND just lost their job.   The solution to all their problems?...

     

    Get 3 more BTL's..

     

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5591156

     

    Feel free to add your thoughts and contributions to their thread on MSE

     

     

    Perpetual HPI is strong with this one.

    in fact although he briefly moved out and lived in the rental property, the area is quite rough and the neighbours threatened him so he soon moved back in.

    And a people farmer. Tenant scum must suffer, but my ex couldn't possibly live there.

    I'm reluctant to take risks on stocks and shares etc.

    This is part of our problem. BTL = no risk. These people have few other options with their money that they understand, so property is the only way.

  8. 50 minutes ago, Tapori said:

    keep up the good work people. It's happenin' .

    Not wanting totally on everyone's parade, but if you set the time period to all, it's clear that there are some very significant swings of average in that area in both direction (I imagine not helped by low transaction volumes and some very expensive purhc) eg. Oct 2012 £2.7M to Dec 2012 £1.1M.

    I'd love to attach a screenshot where I am, but I can't (work computer, alas).

    However, the recent trend looks downwards to me. If I had the time (and easy access to the underlying data), I would do some quick stats.

  9. More profound insights from everyone's favourite property investor.

    Quote

    Professor Dorling is simply a turd in the back of our trousers, in regards to not listening to those who are going to be affected.

    He’s just bouncing away in the back there, causing a stink and solving nothing.

    You can’t sit on a turd and you can’t push it back in, once it’s out, it’s out, you can only poke it with a stick or flush it away

    Or perhaps a fecal transplant? To break the house hording habit. I can't find any studies suggesting this might work, but what have "academicals" ever done for us?!

    Quote

    ...I have done more for this country’s problems then he [Danny Dorling] ever will and so have we all

    So what have you done Gary?

    Quote

    You have all invested your capital, time and efforts into providing a profitable asset and at the same time given somebody a roof over their head that they couldn’t afford to buy and the councils would never have offered in the first place

    Oh no! So what will you do now?

    Quote

    we will eventually adjust and possibly invest £billions in something other than housing for profit.

    How about real people farming? How much for a Fecal transplant on the open market?

  10. 14 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

    That's very interesting, thanks!

    Is that straight line valuation voluntary or mandatory, in the absence of a definitive April 2015 valuation?

    It seems to me that it could work in the other direction if there were significant price falls, e.g. if current prices fell back below April 2015 levels but were still above the original purchase price, the straight line calculation would assign some of those gains to the post-April 2015 period, when the property had actually been losing capital value.

    Agreed entirely, it's a desperate gamble that requires serious upheaval and entails significant risks of its own.

    Read the HMRC article: Capital Gains Tax for non-residents: calculating a taxable gain or loss

    Looks voluntary to me.

    There are three methods:

    1) Based in value in April 2015.

    2) The straight line calculation.

    3) Entire gain made all at once on date of sale (probably if you make a loss only!)

  11. 15 hours ago, richc said:

    Sorry, but why is any sane person buying a flat in London right now?  Rental yields in London are so low that it makes no sense to be buying given the risks of brexit, rising global interest rates and changes to BTL taxation on capital values. Buying a flat in London right now is a very good way to lose a very large sum of money very quickly ( as in £30,000 a month).

    This. Really smart girl at work (early 30s, Cambridge Natsci) buying a newbuld 600k flat in Canary Wharf. Studio. 'first time buyer'.

    I'm pretty sure I'm the only person she's ever spoken to who dissents from this being a good plan.

  12. 13 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

    Also, arguing with HMRC about what the exact April 2015 valuation was might not prove to be all that fun. ;)

    They let you 'straight line' value it, so assume the gains happened evenly over time. The way compound gain works means that you overestimate gains in the distant past (not taxed) and underestimate it more recently.

    It does, however, demonstrate just how desperate someone in 'negative MEW equity' (ie. owing more CGT than they have in actual equity thanks to MEWing) really are.

    Notwithstanding the complexity of proving you are non-resident, you exile yourself.

    However, it's only one (minor) legislative change away with not much in the way of negative political consequences , or even an HMRC disagreement over how you've calculated it with a lengthy, expensive and stressful court case.

    It's an insane gamble with the climate around tax avoidance and landlords at the moment.

    But then 'political risk' which real businesses worry about isn't some the BTL crowd handle very well.

    Apart from the shouty letters. And fruitless court cases.

  13. 10 minutes ago, Jugador said:

    I had no idea that was possible. Good news that they've closed that hole!

    I'm not convinced it's been closed - it's actually quite ambiguous. CGT is imposed on non-residents for capital gains AFTER 2015.

    Example

    Hypocritical shit house bought ten years 2007 increased in price £100k sold April 2017.

    (ignoring some allowances)

    CGT is chargeable on two years of gain = 20k. 28% is 5.6k.

    What I'm not clear about is if you've become a non-resident in 2015,  HMRC will count the previous years as being liable for CGT or not.

  14. Ok, so I've never (needed to) even submit a tax return thanks to good ol' PAYE and I know nothing about tax. Take the below with a pinch of salt.

    TLDR; I think the hypothetical Mr X, by moving to Malta, might be able to avoid capital gains, but there are two main hurdles. One is proving that you're a permenant non-dom (after 5 years) and the other is that HMRC applies the rules in exactly the way you understand them (and those rules don't change). 

    Quote

     

    Reply to the comment left by “Nigel Reynolds” at “03/01/2017

    2 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    Has he notified his mortgage companies he's moved ?

     

    Anyone reported him ?

     

     

    Say Mr X purchased a rental property in August 1996 for £50,000 and it is now worth £500,000, i.e. £450,000 of capital gain.

    He became resident in Malta in Feb 2016 and sold the property in August 2016 for £500,000.

    How much capital gains tax do you think he was liable for and why? For ease please assume he’s already a higher rate tax paye

    The basis of the figure that he then goes on to work out is based on the HMRC calculator which seems to assume Mr X has always been non-resident.

    However:

    Quote

    The calculator gave me the answer £5,287.50

    Let's think about this and assume moving to Malta means that you can instantly, 100% prove that you are non-resident.

    You have to leave the country and there are lots of complex rules about where and when you have to be out, how often you visit the UK etc. You also have to be out for 5 years and in each year be non-resident. My favourite is the rule of "branch or agency"- which means that if you have branches or agents in the country acting on your behalf, then you might be resident.as well. You also (thanks to some new rules in the Finance Act 2015) have to not becoming a non-dom for the purposes of avoiding tax. Publically stating that this was your intention might be unwise as a result.

    However, if let's say the hurdles above are all satisfied. Look at the rules for temporary non-doms (those non-dom'd less than 5 years) and how their capital gains are calculated.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/temporary-non-residents-and-capital-gains-tax-hs278-self-assessment-helpsheet/hs278-temporary-non-residents-and-capital-gains-tax-2015

    Quote

    Subject to this, an individual who left the UK to live abroad and ceased to be resident in the UK will not be chargeable on gains made in years of assessment after they left theUK unless their non-residence was temporary and they resume tax residence in the UKwithin a certain time. These ‘temporary non-residence’ rules are contained in section 10A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992) and are described later on in this helpsheet.

    If you are fully non-dom, the calculator we are using here works out which gains took place in which years.

    We need to work out which gains took place in which years - capital gains after April 2015 are liable for non-residents on UK property. 

    There are two ways of doing this:

    Quote

    Time apportionment

    You can work out a simple straight-line time apportionment of the whole gain made over the period you owned the property

    This is the method the calculator uses, and assumes that the gain is accumulated linearly across the tax years. Each year is assigned a proportion of the gain, in equal chunks and you use the capital gains allowance for each of those years. At the moment, Mr X assumes that his capital gains in each previous year prior to April 2015 are non-taxable. There is an intrinsic contradiction here, which HMRC should be alert to. Surely- you can't both look backwards and assume you weren't liable for tax in those years (when you were) AND simultaneously, calculate the gain over that period for year. Even if they were, you rely on HMRC agreeing with you.

    OR

    Quote

    Gain over whole period of ownership

    This computation method may only be worth considering if you’ve made a loss. In the previous example the gain would be £430,000 so this method wouldn’t be beneficial. You can decide not to make an apportionment, particularly if you want to establish an amount of loss on a property.

    So you can bring the entire gain to "today"... but you pay tax on the full amount because after April 2015, well, non-residents do.

  15. 12 hours ago, GreenDevil said:

    Last post is diamond. Haha you poor thing.

    MX have been crystalising losses since 2008. They do not have a target to make profit. Their only target is to close out the mortgage book and ‘return’ the money to the taxpayer. I assume they have already written off a lot of debt as toxic anyway, so anything more than 10% of the debt repaid is a job well done. They do not act as a business in the traditional sense so don’t make rational decisions as a business would. They would not need to get a possession order in court as such. You will not get your day in court. They will instruct LPA’s, who they will say are your agent, then the LPA will sell the houses on your behalf at a huge loss, probably to one of their friends, who will make a tidy profit. This sounds extreme I know, but I am not a pessimist, just a realist. Just type in CAG Mortgage Express LPA Receiver into Google.

    Of course, real banks never write down debt (read: crystallise their losses)

    It's irrational, innit.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_writedowns_due_to_subprime_crisis

  16. 2 hours ago, goldbug9999 said:

    Its an example of "local optimisation" (A lean process concept) - each estate agent is doing whats best for them in the short term at the expense of what good for all of them in the long term, which means selling to landlords because they have been 80% or so of the market for many years.

    Even more so, the same also surely must apply to those chartered surveyors? They don't get anything from a house being rented out.

    RICs seems to be all for BTL.

    https://www.property118.com/rics-recommendations-for-the-private-rented-sector/93104/

  17. With property118 types in love with their housing empires and planning to 'never sell' (Life expectancy is mid 70s and I guess BTLer is mid 50s) why do the industry bodies not cheer attempts to make them sell up (eg. s24)?

    That's ~£1440 annually (London, £1200pcm @ 10% fee a year -) compared to the £10k they'd get for selling comparable place in fees at 2% (yes, £500k, ~3% yield).

    Assuming average time in house is 10 years, that's £14k over 10 years, excluding inflation, or £10k now, without the need to maintain an army of letting agents/management types - having to pay staff to worry about the boilers or periodically relet the place.

    In NPV terms, the two are very similar even with low interest rates.

    Obviously this excludes the fictional fees now under pressure.

    ... And yet:

    http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/this-has-been-an-annus-horribilis-for-landords-says-connells-firm/

    These guys depend on volume to generate fees. Volume = owner occupiers moving around buying and selling as much as possible, not mindless property hoarding.

    Now that transaction levels seem to be crashing through the floor and RICS is telling us that supply is at an historic low, do they understand their business?

  18. 13 minutes ago, The Knimbies who say No said:

    Ok,

     

    checked out out of a rental recently, where my family and I (2 adults plus 3 year old child) have lived for 2 years. The agent's inspector conducted a 'Schedule of condition' /inventory report when we moved in and one recently when we moved out. The inspector, who has apparently received training from both the DPS and the APIP (me neither, the Association of Professional Inventory Providers) gave a summary stating the property is in a good clean condition commensurate with that when we moved in, with a few minor marks to the walls. There is a section which asks whether any cleaning to the carpets, Windows or anywhere else is required, which has been filled in as 'n/a'. There then follows a detailed room-by-room breakdown where any issues are noted in more detail, with photographic evidence. In the more detailed breakdown a couple of minor cleaning issues are noted along with maintenance stuff for the LL. The report runs to 23 pages, although is mostly pictures with a couple of comments.

    So, the Landlord is apparently unhappy with the report and wants additional cleaning done to a few parts and thinks some damage has been caused. Seems they are unwilling to accept the agent's inspector's report, despite the agent trying to persuade them to leave it. I also sent around 150 photos to both agent and owner upon leaving the property and prior to the report being compiled.

    I called the DPS for some advice and although helpful they seemed slightly bemused by the situation and suggested I call Shelter.

    Has anyone had to rely on a checkout report from an agent in order to defend themselves against a claim on the deposit made from the same agent..? The agent is the entity listed on the deposit paperwork so it would be them who would make the claim on behalf of the LL I suppose. Agent is refusing to release our deposit for now, we have officially requested it via DPS.

    How do I protect myself against this stuff? I don't really want to go through the dispute process but seems like it will be happening. What are the prospects for the deposit to be returned in full? I guess the fact the inspector has had DPS training would surely give their report some credence with the DPS.

    He's trying it on, the chancer. Here's my view as a non-lawyer.

    The deposit is YOUR money until proved otherwise. The landlord needs to prove that he's entitled to it in the same that he would do if there was no deposit at all (it's only there so it is easier to get to if there is a dispute - and you have a right to go to court if you really want to).

    Put it this way: without a third party inventory, it's very difficult for a landlord to prove anything and they really struggle with claiming off the deposit without one. Read this:

    http://www.depositprotection.com/documents/top-ten-inventory-tips.pdf

    You have a third party inventory and it's on your side = sorted. Dispute it. Say that you agree with the checkout report in its entireity (if you do) and make sure that you submit the report you were provided with.

    Unfortunately, I don't think there is much you can do to prevent this happening in the first place - chancers exist and probably fancy keeping your money (this is why deposit protection legislation exists!). Don't be intimidated. There's no hearing, just written evidence.

    Be aware that many landlords don't understand what "fair wear and tear" is and expect you to return the place unlived in. 

  19. 45 minutes ago, eek said:

    Now you know they are new and renting you can go round and introduce yourself and tell them why the previous ones left.

    Then enquiry if they are really paying £xxx a month, don't you feel ripped off we are only paying....

    Very good!

    These "to the legal owner" letters always annoy me - almost always from estate agents.

    Number one, land law in the UK on my leasehold flat means that there are layers of ownership, starting at the queen and ending at me, a tenant, via the freeholder and the long-leaseholder.

    On the basis that I "own" my tenancy agreement and am the legal occupier, I open these anyway in case they are baliffs threatening to kick the door down and repossess my things for someone else's debt.

    If it's definitely estate agent material (you can see the return address on the reverse sometimes) I return to sender and ask to be removed from their mailing lists.

    I would tell them the queen doesn't reside here, but I suspect it would be lost on them...

  20. For me, my (successful) tactic was to point out exactly what you have just said here. Say that you're not used to paying for things which don't benefit you, the benefit is entirely on the side of the landlord and if he is prepared to pick up the full fee, then you are happy.

    Also, if you don't know the landlord's address, it might be worth paying the land registry to get it - £3. You can then write to them. Remember the landlord will be paying too, and he may not even realise he has another option.

  21. Im waiting for the Housing bill to confirm housing association tenants can get their houses at knockdown prices. I asked Grant Shapps, the then housing minister, about this in 2010 when the Tories were promoting RTB. Still got the email telling me "it will never happen". Ive got 50 large sat in the bank and I want it in bricks and mortar before the money system goes pop! What's the bloody hold up?

    I call troll.

    I've been renting privately for 10 years. Why should you get the right to buy your house at a discount while simultanesouly paying less and having better security because I was able to house myself 10 years ago out of my own pocket and you needed assistance?

  22. https://www.morethan.com/sites/default/files/policy-legal-services.pdf

    The most relevant bits are on page 10:

    1. The cost of you taking legal proceedings against another person or organisation as a result of:

    a. a person or organisation interfering with your legal rights relating to your home (you must be legally entitled to live in the home)
    b. a dispute over a contract in your name to buy or sell your home or former home or to rent your home as a tenant;
    ...
    2. The cost of defending legal action brought against you as a result of:
    ...
    b. a dispute over a contract in your name to buy or sell your home or former home or to rent your home as a tenant
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information