Matt Bear

This second homes thing is obscene when ministers get given London flats presumably because they have to be in London a lot yet then claim their own home as their second home. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-expenses.html edit: added first sentence 'cause I remembered why this annoyed me so much.

This is where the scandal lies in the expenses that have come to light so far. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of it.

What seems ironic to me is that in the height of the boom you could get a gifted deposit, yet now they're desparate to offload the best you can get is an interest free deposit.

They're not punting at all. This is all about arbitrage. The oil companies and brokers doing it are buying and selling on the same day. They buy for delivery today and at a similar time sell a future for delivery of the oil in 6 months. If the cost of the oil today plus the associated storage costs for 6 months is less than the future price then they are in the money.

Zombie banks. Zombie car makers. Zombie builders. They need to be left to go bust.

Sales volumes have collapsed. Look at the graph on page 12. It only goes up to January "Because sales volume figures for the two most recent months are not yet complete, they are not included in the report."

http://www.property-bee.com/ Works with Firefox and Rightmove to show when sellers have reduced their prices.

Looks that way. I guess they're trying to get the big banks sorted first, then maybe they'll get the big banks to takeover the small banks.

Hardly substantial SA when compared with December or January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8020547.stm

I bet a lot of the MoM drop is down to seasonal adjustments. They've probably ramped up the past couple of months figures but have no choice now but to add some -ve seasoning.

I'm not surprised by this move and maybe we'll see Lloyds follow suit althoguh they may come under government pressure not to do so. The background is that sometime ago Nationwide and Lloyds made promises that their SVRs would never be more than 2% above the BOE base rate. That's why their SVRs are currently so cheap. Now in order to get out of this promise they have to create a new form of SVR for new mortgages.

as I understand it the new rate only applies to new mortgage deals.

OP has said she has been made redundant. That is the reality. That is the reason for the sudden change. She has said they would not be able to afford the mortgage repayments if rates increased and there is a significant saving in monthly expenditure to be made by renting

OP has said she has been made redundant. That is the reality. That is the reason for the sudden change. She has said they would not be able to afford the mortgage repayments if rates increased and there is a significant saving in monthly expenditure to be made by renting

Personally I wouldn't advertise it as "offers above". People want a discount especially in the current climate.Putting "Offers above" is likely to either make people wait until you reduce your price anyway, or remove the offers above bit, or they will offer a lesser amount anyway. But maybe it's different in London.

Even if it meant paying £2k a month?

Being able to offset expenses against the mortgage interest payments is one thing. The tax loophole/anachronism being abolished here is the ability to offset losses against personal income tax.

Surely all that this means is that the value of such properties will reduce. Previously the earnings from letting plus the tax advantages resulted in a certain value based on a certain yield. Now there is no longer tax advantage, the value based solely on the earnings from lettings is lower for the same yield.

"A discount of £2,000 will be offered to consumers buying a new vehicle to replace a vehicle more than ten years old which they have owned for more than twelve months." Ah b***. No chance of getting a decent price on me old banger then.

I'm off to the Post Office to get some Euros.

Forecasting 3.5% growth in 2011!

I guess it's a bit like making an offer on a house and having that offer accepted, there's nothing to stop either party withdrawing from the agreement until contracts are exchanged. You'd be in a stronger position if you had indicated you accepted the offer. The other avenue to explore would be consumer protection or credit legislation.

Isn't this just an offer? Like an invitation to treat? They have simply withdrawn the offer before its previously advised expiry date. For it to be a contract you would have had to have provided consideration or a promise thereof. Unless, alternatively, it is sufficiently defined in the original contract, i.e. that you have the option of requesting a settlement figure at any time which will be valid for a specifyied period (and presuming there isn't also a clause allowing them to retract said settlement figure.

And then the government announces upto £5k subsidies for leccy cars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8001254.stm Personally I agree at the moment they are just a gimmick. To do any good for the environment then realistically we are talking about lots more nuclear generation and/or carbon sequestration at coal fired generators, probably in combination with some form of direct carbon dioxide emission tax.