simon2

I can see more of that sort of stuff, probably could not be publicised explicity but 'soft' factors could be taken into account such as person's CV and general background. Maybe something related to key workers or green jobs, as these are the buzzwords of the present. Doesn't really make sense that a blanket multiple should apply for everyone as everyone's circumstance is different. For instance you could have a graduate from Cambridge working in the NHS on a management pathway, or a non-grad recruitment consultant whose role is dependent on hitting targets, both on the same salary. They would be entitled to the same borrowing for the same property, but I would think history would show that the NHS worker is a far safer bet and thus could be loaned a higher multiple.

If it wasn't for politics and the desire to remain in power I doubt they would care much if asset prices corrected themselves naturally. Discussing it with people at work there is a certain thing. People know that more props and more free money is not actually a good thing. People know that their kids, or kids today have no real chance of buying the same things they did when they were the same age. Continued HPI in excess of wages will just continue that trend. But because they stand to benefit, they won't criticise and actually like it. That's why the government have been so successful in getting these votes - give the thick middle class the impression that they are getting ahead of another group of people, which they are - the working rentier class are getting poorer overall. They then bask in a smug feeling, but the reality is the rich classes benefit much more than them and they don't even realise. It's genius really, if a little sad that the electorate are manipulated so easily.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/108837179#/?channel=RES_BUY £100k off (sorry don't have property log) Wonder what will become of these things - obviously even more unfashionable. Nothing has sold here in 4 years, a flurry at the peak of the market - people actually paid £400k+ then. A lot of people in these types of flats will never be truly forced sellers, being long-term owners. But at some point you would think someone actually wants to sell instead of kitefly. Maybe the above is a good example, but at the same price you can buy something non-high rise, newer and closer to the station. See very little appeal in those old-style blocks which are more likely to come with anti-social behaviours.

That's the media trap - you don't know for sure what her bill is going to be. It could be a lot less. But it is presented as if it is fact already. Personally I believe that many people will pay a fraction of the worst case costs. In the case of this freeholder here, this development seems to have 35 flats and the bill is £2.6m. What actually would be gained by dragging these leaseholders through the courts to get the cash? Legally, they may be entitled to it. But the PR would be terrible and probably would cost them many multiples of £2.6m. Why? It would be in the news and with a wholly negative slant as to bankrupt people for the repair work would make them homeless and unable to get another mortgage in the short term. For future purchasers nobody would consider a property as Optivo as the freeholder if they are known to be heavy handed. For current tenants once it blows over there would be a big motivation to get right to manage. It seems to me the most likely ending will be some kind a partial government grant, partial payment from freeholder and partial payment from leaseholder - some sort of capped amount so it can be spun as doing them a favour.

No, the bill is per property; assuming someone else owns exactly the same size in the same block their bill is the same, even if they are 100%. This seems a co-ordinated sob-story as in multiple people have reached out to multiple papers, all about the same block. Some have chucked in being key workers - as if it makes any difference. This is much like the interest rates ******** - it hasn't happened yet, and maybe is quite unlikely to. Quite funny how they even mocked up a graphic in the article to try and pretend it looks like a bill, but it isn't one. I know of a block where the tenders were put out and the bill was something like £60k per flat. But this is not definite yet as there is an application to the safety fund for funding, some of the works don't fall under the remit though. It still looks complex, and the freeholder may still end up covering some or all of the deficit left. But when those owners are in the press, it's like a done deal that the maximum costs will definitely fall and they will be made bankrupt if they don't pay. Not very politically correct to call those own on embellishing the truth though.

Must be a bodged listing, the description refers to a Park home, don't think there are many of those in Wandsworth

That dude has been on before whinging about something. Truth is after 14 years you shouldn't really be in negative equity even if the price of the flat has declined. It isn't really a leasehold problem but if you are suckered into buying a new shiny thing for well over what the comparables are in the area then you may have a problem if the local market is not favourable to you. Don't really need a professor to explain this.

According to this it's 200k+, or 120k if only mainland is taken into account. I am sceptical whether there will be any immediate impact; reading the five groups of buyers they put them into none of them really rival the average person. That's even if the loans are recalled in. I presume that the Aussie/NZ markets are even more inflated than ours, a £1m central London flat may well be a better bet than a £1m house miles out in the sticks.

Almost like they don't want to sell it, what a terrible presentation. This is on for £75k extra but has double the space, maybe 3 or 4 times the overall plot size as the garden is actually a real garden.... that small house seems overpriced to me by quite some distance. Some flats would be better to live in than that if you were single/couple. As for a family, no way is that house suitable.

Actually the timeline of that seems that there was a buyer but the sale fell through; during that time from March to now properties must have gone up in value (trying to catch the SD holiday) so seller needed to ask more to keep up with it. Many of the ones I've seen with price increases (which are pretty rare) seem to match this pattern. They probably would have got another buyer quick had they not done the increase.

I saw this as well. The ex-council flats all struggle unless price or location is really good - go to the second picture and there is zero curb appeal to that, although admittedly there are worse out there. The selling prices tell the tale - last sale in 2013, only 4 sales in 20 years, one of those was the posters as well. In that time I bet there would have been loads of people attempting to try and get out at a big profit with no success: equally ugly exterior block here with no sales history. Other ugly properties on at £100k less like this, or this, but much more ugly. At only a little bit more (£450k) you are looking at ex-new builds with 2 bathrooms, or a flat in a period building, much less chance of neighbours being unemployed bums or people pissing in your lifts. It amazes me that there are bidders for them in the first place.

I read about this last night. No doubt loads of fire crews were sent out of prudence - it looks like an old block. However, it seems to have been a good result - nobody died, 2 people taken to hospital and the lack of photos this morning suggests to me that the fire was well contained - unlike Grenfell where it spread to the rest of the building rapidly. Nothing to do with cladding at all - but no doubt people will be using it as some kind of propaganda even though they very well know that fixing the cladding will not prevent people from being careless in their own homes, and as a result these fires will still happen.

Inflation yes, hyperinflation no; unless you want to change the general definition of what hyperinflation is.... a 10% orderly rise in general prices every year is pretty shocking compared to the past. But that isn't hyperinflation. Some stuff has already gone up massively in price, like garden sheds 100%. But that isn't hyperinflation either, unless for some reason they double every year. One of the root causes of it (shitloads of money printing) has already happened; the likely response to inflation makes inflation worse. The classical ways of dealing with inflation in history off the top of my head is to raise interest rates, control the money supply, more tax, increase supply chain, suppress wage spirals. In generations to come I believe this period won't be judged nicely as we appear to be doing the opposite to all of these. Interest rates are lower, the money supply is higher. There were actually tax more tax breaks than tax cuts; attempts to improve supply chains usually involve enriching government friends. Stopping wage rises is political suicide, and rather than doing anything the government is more likely to try and claim the credit for it. Their only tricks (which I believe we will see soon) will be casually mentioning other measures which makes it sound good. Ie RPI non-food ex fuel, basically saying as long as someone doesn't need to eat, pay for accomodation or heat then inflation is on target. Our economies simply cannot handle the textbook ways of dealing with inflation any more, on a collective public level or a government level. It is not only debt that has trapped the government in, but the public inability to bear hardships. If most people are willing to protest in the streets over someone they don't know getting killed, think about what it'll be like when people run out of money and there is no free government handouts. The thought of them giving up unnecessary items like Sky, alcohol/cigarettes will be alien to them.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/113848304#/?channel=RES_BUY Maybe someone crapping themself? £125k off in one go - not lease related as 88 years. Maybe a typo. These types of properties I think are difficult to shift in London, specifically ugly council-style properties. Looking at the sales history here it is a real common pattern: very few actually change hands. Often a BTL is suckered - someone paid £490k for one here - and then the rest of the flats try to get that value.

Surely depends on value of other assets? If most of your worth lies in these properties then getting rid of one is sensible. On the other hand if you have millions elsewhere it isn't as pressing.