Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

hra

Members
  • Posts

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hra

  1. Wouldn't want to be driving past if someone decided it would be too much trouble to go all the way downstairs to the bathroom.
  2. Oh well, at least they can get jobs at Tescos.
  3. I emailed their news editor about the HomeBuy consultation and went on to make the following points about their article: Your article claims the main risk from the scheme is prices could rise while buyers wait for the scheme. I strongly disagree, even though the scheme and its associated "spin" has been seen as a ruse to try and stave off a crash. The main risk is that the [HomeBuy consultation] documents give a completely misleading impression of market conditions. They are based on surveys carried out 4-5 years ago while the market was booming and the general wording of the document underpins this impression. Nowhere do they say that the market has apparently peaked, many economists are predicting falls, that these are a reality, and that many people are finding it actually makes financial good sense to sell up and rent. There are any number of more recent surveys and indicators they could have quoted. What financial advisor would seriously counsel their clients to enter an asset class at the peak of the market, especially one as illiquid as housing, on such a basis? Perhaps in a couple of years we will see the mother of all financial mis-selling scandals (if the FSA is still around to police it). Things might not look quite so bright after all. Back to your article: Clearly this is not "news": both the stamp duty change and the HomeBuy initiative are not new. The HomeBuy document came out in April and the Chancellor's announcements in May. I am told the BBC "pulled" an article this week after complaints showed it was based on out-of-date financial reports and I suggest you have the grace to do the same.
  4. Anyone got an email address for complaints about the article?
  5. Just had the most blatant example of exactly that! :angry: As some of you know, I've been formally responding to the ODPM's consultation document for Gorgon Brown's "FTB scheme" , whose deadline is 24th June. Oddly, a supplementary document containing "key" data was not available at the outset. It was promised 4 weeks before the end of the 12-week consultation period - in the end it came out 2 weeks before. I asked whether the consultation period was going to be extended to take the delay into account, and pointed out that even delaying the extra document until 4 weeks before the deadline was presumably a breach of the consultation guidelines, and that it could invalidate responses people had already made. Got the following reply: Actually it's so ludicrous I have to laugh. 1. If the document was deliberately delayed until the recess (!!), even more reason to extend the deadline! 2. It still does not address my point why the supplementary data was not available for the full 12 week consultation period. 3. It ignores my point that the data was quite clearly described as "key" i.e. essential. Just like "key workers"! The main document also clearly states the supplementary one would be published in time to "enable consultees to take account of the data ... in forming their responses". It is wholly inaccurate to turn round a couple of months later and claim the document is somehow only of marginal interest (and given the content, it isn't). 4. It is not a technical "annex" - again they're trying defend their position by downplaying its significance. The supplementary document is almost half as long as the main one and has several supporting surveys and an annex of its own. 5. My own responses would have been invalidated if I hadn't read the supplementary document. I can't speak for any other people's responses. (Has the ODPM read them all yet?) I would, for example, have claimed there was no economic evidence (which the supplementary doc. supplies) and that no analysis has been done of the reasons people want to buy their own homes (again in the supplementary doc). 6. The supplementary is much better written and much easier to understand, with worked examples.
  6. Nowhere could this be more true of the HomeBuy consultation process, where a document containing 'key' (that word again) supplementary data was not planned to be made available until 4 weeks before the end of the 12-week consultation period, and in the event was late - barely more than 2 weeks before, without explanation and without extending the deadline. Personally I suspect there will enough adverse media coverage of developers' role in all this to discredit it to a point where it is meaningless. It is an open invitation to price-rigging. At best, when developers know they can guarantee a sale through one of these subsidised schemes (i.e. the purchase of the property is publicly subsidised as well as the equity loan) it is hardly an incentive to reduce prices to current market levels or even stop building.
  7. Aha - "in the coming crash" - another convert! 1. A property which would a. have intrinsic value e.g. well built and plenty of space; b. be reasonably easy to re-sell to picky buyers in a difficult market i.e. no obvious flaws such as an awkward layout, undesirable location e.g. on main road or near pub or even on steep slope; c. not priced up due to expensive and unnecessary improvements e.g. swimming pools, fancy landscape gardening, elaborate conversions, or even because it is new; d. be in an established area with a sense of community (even in an area where few properties change hands, you may find a small enclave - a particular road or block - where they seem to change hands more often for no particular reason!) e. have minimal exposure to planning blight - don't pay a premium for living near a park or having a fantastic view if there's a significant risk it could get built on. f. be in an area which has not recently suffered a manic speculative boom which bears no relation to the local economy but where prices have typically risen more steadily and already had some falls priced in. 2. Renting vs Buying costs a. Service charge (leasehold properties): owner-occupiers pay this, tenants do not; owners are exposed to risk that this will rise over and above inflation or that demands are made for sinking funds etc; b. Buildings insurance (sometimes collected via service charge); owners pay this, tenants do not; c. Contents insurance: both owners and tenants are responsible but in a rented furnished property obviously the tenant does not have to pay for the furniture and more importantly, make sure it meets regulations; d. Repairs, renewals, redecoration: tenant usually not responsible for costs, including management costs, but on the other hand cannot simply go and redecorate / enhance / personalise the property as they wish; e. Lettings agents' fees: tenant will usually incur a fee on each renewal. Inventory costs also have to be factored in; f. Council tax and water rates; both tenant and owner-occupiers are responsible but tenant may not always have he option of having a water meter to reduce costs. g. Leasehold extensions: Owner-occupiers responsible but not tenants. When leases decline to c. 70 years it often becomes attractive to extend the lease or purchase the freehold. This can literally cost thousands, although of course the property value is not only preserved but usually goes up as a result. h. Legal costs (e.g. boundary disputes): owner-occupiers responsible but not tenants.
  8. The proposals don't actually state the criteria by which this select number of FTBs will qualify. Since the whole purpose of the scheme is to "help" people into property ownership, they might at least say who, and why, don't you think?
  9. If you honestly feel you can't rent, after your bad experiences, then you might still find other, more cost-effective, ways to buy outside the scheme particularly as you are happy to be in the property for the very long term and have stable employemnt prospects. Notably a lot of the key-worker-eligible properties seem to be newbuilds (there is even a dedicated NewBuild HomeBuy scheme) strange, because they command a substantial premium, they depreciate, and they typically have smaller or non-existent gardens. Yet according to the HomeBuy proposals, the desire to have more space and a garden are some of the main reasons that people are so keen to own their own homes in the first place! The proposals also claim the premium for a newbuild to be only about 10%. I'm sure that a good many of posters on this forum would disagree - myself included. E.g. a 3-bed '60's semi with huge garden sold in 2004 in my area for £182K after a year on the market while tiny newbuild 3-bed semis were on the market for £325K approx (cash buyers only, please). Why take a part-share of an expensive property when you might find you could have all of a cheaper one, without all the restrictions? As DrBubb said, buy carefully below market. Even in an expensive area, you may well be able to find find a dated, not too done-up older-style house where the owner is prepared to take offers, especially if it is the type of property where a chain-free buyer is unusual. You'd be more likely to get the vendor to take offers and also you would not have a supposedly independent valuation imposed on you by the scheme. There would be more scope to ease the financial burden by taking a lodger if you needed to, as well. And the property value would not depreciate by huge amounts in the first few years.
  10. Referring to the new proposals again, it did strike me that a "key worker" might be far better off leaving their eligible employment before entering the part-ownership scheme - then qualifying as an ordinary FTB, depending on what the entry criteria actually turn out to be (they haven't actually been stated). I wonder what existing key workers in the scheme will think of FTBs who also qualify for equity loans and subsidies yet can presumably do whatever job they want, if any. Perhaps they're called "key workers" because they're locked in?
  11. Under the new proposals you will have to pay back the equity loan at market value within two years if you leave eligible employment, even if you don't sell or choose to buy them out. (Is this true already, or is it a new restriction)? Since you couldn't afford the whole price of the property to start with, there is no guarantee that you would be able to do so in the future, and you'd be exposed to any price rise. Perhaps even in a falling market, the penalty would be prohibitive. Realistically you'd probably have to sell even if you didn't want to. There could be all kinds of reasons for leaving eligible employment, not all of which are under your control. You seem fairly happy your public sector job is secure, but it's still a risk.
  12. People with enough worthless dot-com ones could make them into a cardboard box, though.
  13. Exactly, as mentioned earlier, it isn't at all clear where these quotes came from and what else he said to put it in context. Still, did we really expect a headline saying "House prices set to plummet by 2-3% by year end, says leading economist" ?
  14. I'd like to see Ed Stansfield's quotes in their full context, since this is pretty much the main evidence the article relies on i.e. Anyone know where to find his full article? It would be particularly interesting to know whether his original 7% prediction was locally in a particular area (as I seem to recall) or nationally. Also interesting is the BBC's mention of "underlying confidence in future prospects" - future prospects of what exactly? a recession / surge in bankruptcies / spiralling unemployment / rising taxes / retail slowdown ....
  15. You and she are extremely lucky in being able to rely on trust and goodwill, and I hope nothing goes wrong to spoil it. Some people are tempted into using an agency *because* they get on well with their landlord but are shy or not very experienced about negotiations (e.g. over repairs / contract terms / rent increases) and prefer to use an agent as an intermediary in order to avoid the risk of any face-to-face unpleasantness. Charging things like inventory fees, credit check fees and agreement preparation fees are fairly standard but often excessive to a greater or lesser degree as other posts on this forum have amply illustrated - and landlords have to pay their share too. But perhaps it doesn't sound so much when split between two parties. The problem is that many new tenants a. don't know in advance what costs they're going to incur on renewal; and b. don't know what they're getting for their money. E.g. (as in my neighbour's case) a botched agreement which had glaring clerical errors in it, where the landlord didn't have the same version that the tenant had agreed, which has had to be redrafted barely 6 weeks from the end of the tenancy, and where neither was required to initial each page (obvious risks). The eventual cost of the new agreement to both landlord and tenant was almost two-thirds of the disputed rent increase! BTW she did stand her ground over the rent and has now signed an agreement to keep it the same for a year and defer the increase.
  16. To counter all the media attention given to the retail slowdown and falling business confidence, did he give any idea of what those inflationary pressures might be? (e.g. energy costs)? It's interesting to see inflation cited as a reason for a rise, rather than US interest rates.
  17. The document barely considers the possibility of a falling housing market, or any other cause of mass repossessions, at all: both it and the supplementary document are largely based on very out-of-date surveys and assumptions about the market and the economy in general, which is one of its main weaknesses. But the main document does say that some buyers in the scheme *could* be offered the option to "staircase down" (i.e. reduce their equity) in cases of financial difficulty though it leaves that question open. It stresses that this would be an option, not a right, and that it would be at the discretion of the holder of the remaining equity share (not necessarily the Government) and of the mortgage lender. A buyer would have to be in one of the schemes (e.g. a social tenant, or a key worker) for this to be true, not a normal buyer in financial difficulty and facing repossession.
  18. I have just had a reply from the ODPM with the links to the supplementary document. Apparently it only came out yesterday, 6th June. Here are the links: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odp...use_038088.hcsp There is also a press release which came with it: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/displaypn.cgi?pn_id=2005_0107 Haven't read it yet but I did reply to ask whether the consultation deadline was going to be extended (it's only just over 2 weeks away) in view of the fact that the supplementary doc was not issued over 4 weeks before the response deadline as promised and that even the 4 week promise was arbitrary for something described as "key", i.e. essential, data for the purposes of the consultation.
  19. Just as in my neighbour's case, you could check whether the lettings agent informed you at the beginning of the first contract that you'd be tied into fixed-term contracts because of the rent guarantee scheme (it sounds as if you weren't) and therefore liable for fees for credit checks upon renewal: http://www.arla.co.uk/info/tenants.htm#age...ees_and_charges I think a lot of lettings agents seem rather sloppy about this and the end result is that tenants get settled in, then get stung for extra fees upon renewal and tend to pay up because they assume they've somehow agreed to, or are frightened to argue. In your case you may find you have made no contractual commitment whatsoever, even a verbal one, to comply with the rent guarantee scheme and all its associated costs (and restrictions!). Well back to my Sold-to-Rant Neighbour, the lettings agents are now blaming the landlord and saying he wanted to proceed and never mentioned a rent increase. Wouldn't surprise me if it all ended up being fudged as a "breakdown in communication".
  20. A near-neighbour of mine STR-ed last year, moved into our block of flats, and has been happily renting, apparently on good terms with the landlords and lettings agency (who is ARLA-registered). The lettings agency emailed her, just under 2 months from the end of the first year's tenancy, regarding the renewal. They said they'd talked to the landlords, who wanted to renew the tenancy "as before". No mention of any rent increase, much to her relief. She replied she'd be happy to renew "under the same terms". The renewal paperwork promptly appeared with the original rent figure on it. (In the process, she did notice there was an error - her address was wrong! -, went into the agency in person to get this corrected and re-stamped, and signed it). The lettings agents charged her approx. £94 for her share of their renewal services and she had to pay this up front. The size of the fee was rather unexpected but given there was no rent increase and no hassle, she paid up, and sat back thinking everything was settled, given the parties' previous very reasonable and businesslike behaviour. 10 days later she got a call (from the landlord, not the agency) totally out of the blue saying that the contract paperwork had been issued "prematurely". Not only was the tenant's address still wrong in his copy (and the landlord had noticed another clerical error as well) but he wanted a rent increase albeit a modest one. This came as a complete shock to the tenant, who thought everything was sorted out. After thinking things over, she phoned up the lettings agency and basically told them she felt the agency should honour the original terms even though the landlord had not signed the renewal, her aguments being: 1. The agency had categorically said that they had talked to the landlords and that the renewal was "as before". 2. She had made a point of agreeing "under the same terms" to clarify this. 3. The renewal paperwork bore this out. 4. She had paid a substantial fee for the renewal paperwork and did not expect anything less than an accurate, professional, service. I can only add that the renewal fee is considerably more than I have paid as a landlord for tenancy renewals in the past, and that she does not have seem to have been informed in advance as to her likely future financial obligations, as the ARLA code of practice stipulates. After making various ridiculous excuses, the agency has now taken the line that it was not their responsibility to negotiate the rent - it was down to the landlords and tenant. But perhaps the agency should look at the renewals section of the ARLA FAQ which says "the ARLA Agent will normally negotiate between the parties". She has not had sight of the landlord's Terms and Conditions, but the agency did negotiate the rental for the initial 1-year tenancy and have never advised the tenant of anything different. Indeed many agencies might be unhappy at thinking landlords and tenants were negotiating behind their backs. My feeling is the agents should make good the landlord by reducing their monthly commission to him and that the tenant's rent should stay as is. A goodwill gesture of a refund of the renewal fees would also help smooth things over. At the end of the day, the agency has charged a professional fee for issuing incorrect and misleading paperwork whether or not the renewal contract is legally binding. What is the best way for her to complain about this? Though the main casualty in all of this has been the loss of goodwill and peace of mind and this seems hard to quantify.
  21. I wonder if we will see commission rates edging up and selling agreements becoming more restrictive (perhaps with extra fees here and there) in order to offset falling prices, falling transaction volumes, and lengthening transaction times with more effort needed to see chains through to completion. Provided sales actually go through, an EA would not need property prices to rise if they are making more money per transaction.
  22. and I'd like to see them chasing you for the council tax on it
  23. LOL! Wasn't there a BBC property expert who set up as one of these consultants after having what sounded like the best part of her BTL portfolio repossessed? That isn't the same one is it?
  24. I think you've done the wrong thing by feeling a little bit sick, but as far as the property is concerned, keep looking at nethouseprices and see what it actually went for (and other properties in the same area) to get some idea of the trend. If you still really *need* to buy, look positive and see if you can find a better property for the money especially as you presumably have finance in place and are proceedable.
  25. If the owner genuinely believes the property will go up by £25K in a year and is potentially willing to wait for this to happen, then why doesn't he?
×
×
  • 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.