Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

moesasji

Members
  • Posts

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by moesasji

  1. This is the real headline that the news-channel seem to have missed completely all going for the "national living wage" one and other attention-grabbers. Brilliant political move to be honest as the fact that some families with 3 children just above that £26k number will be losing a bit more than £2k a year from April 2016 is not highlighted on the news. Roughly £200 a month less to spend is going to hurt on that level of household income. edit) For the numbers try income of 23k (35 hours) & 11k (16 hours) with 3 children on the BBC calculator: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946
  2. I tend to disagree....my biggest bill is my rent and for many it will be their mortgage. Both of these will be supported by housing benefit and/or tax credit. As such a considerable fraction of that money is transferred to wealthy home-owners and/or banks. In both cases I'm not sure much of that money gets back into the economy.
  3. This is utterly unbelievable....so they have £44k income including tax-credits and aim to pay >1200 a month in the current low-interest climate having been unable to save a deposit previously. Absolutely bonkers! They should be worried as both interest will go up and tax-credit down.
  4. Your forgetting to include the salary earned as part of the 16h employment.....so in reality it corresponds to a far higher salary.
  5. You can raise incomes or lower how expensive it is to live. A 12 billion reduction of the welfare bill means that 1 in 5 inhabitants of the UK has £1000 a year less to spend. I don't see that being compensated by wage rises for exactly the reason of immigration/being competitive. Yes you can close the doors, but than the work itself will move to other countries so that really wouldn't help. So it should be rather obvious what will happen if they manage to pull of this level of welfare reduction. The thing that consumes most of the household budget will have to become cheaper. I didn't listen, but I doubt he dared to say anything along those lines.
  6. Great to hear that you've managed to find something! Currently unfortunately in a very similar position as our landlord has decided to sell up. Decent rentals that with the schools are snatched up and there are at least some homes that appear suitable without a completely insane mortgage (at close to 2007 prices). So I'm also seriously considering whether or not I need to give up and buy despite thinking that house-prices will simply have to come down. Very, very frustrating.
  7. Indeed extremely frustrating if one realizes what a hassle it is to move with small children on such short notice, let alone all the expenses associated with moving and that all for someone who has difficulty reading and clearly no business sense. Very frustrating as it is pretty much impossible to find out this type of thing as a tenant.
  8. My take on this is that you are obliged to let your LL know that you have now observed the tank leaking. The EA or issue of S21 has nothing to do with this as that would be behavior expected of a tenant, ie you have a responsibility to notify the LL of problems when you notice them before these problems get out of hand. Obviously if he doesn't do anything to fix it then things become different.
  9. I commute routinely to Bristol from near Wells and I would consider Shepton Mallet too far. That it is too far to some extend explains why it is cheaper... The commute from Shepton Mallet might look OK on the map, but the A37 into Bristol is a road that is both nasty to drive and often gridlocked. This makes that road very unpredictable. I for example never take the A37 despite it being shorter. I think the same applies to my colleagues who live in Wells itself. However one thing to keep in mind is that big parts of Bristol are now "residence" parking, ie it is completely impossible to park anywhere except in the expensive multistore carparks of which there are very few. You will have to take this into account in your planning! That insane policy has on an average day added about half an hour on top of the two hours I did + a lot of frustration to my commute. ps) feel free to drop me a pm if you want more concrete info. One of my colleagues also does a daily Cornwall-Bristol commute; utterly insane but he is able to work during the train-journey which appears to work for him.
  10. Because most people fail to understand that in reality only the banks win when house prices rise.
  11. And you don't have the expenses that come with jobs that earn you that amount of money. Think childcare, commute, cloths, etc and then I don't even mention the levels of stress involved.The system is just plain bonkers and needs addressing urgently.
  12. Probably worth reading the following link from one of the deposit protecting companies. It is focused on landlords, but gives you the information you are after. https://www.mydeposits.co.uk/sites/default/files/LANDLORD%20Best%20Prac%20Guide%20%28Carpet%20Cleaning%29_3097.pdf If your check-in inspection explicitly states that there were cleanliness issues I think you have a good case to be made. However it looks like your case is even simpler. If no cleaning has happened prior to the new tenants moving in he can not provide a receipt for the work having been done after you left. A landlord can not claim for work that has not been done. He needs to provide a receipt for the work. If he can't he will loose. btw) On top you can always consider fair-wear and tear. Carpets have a finite lifetime; if they are >5 years I think it is pretty hard to claim anything.
  13. And if one realizes that the housing benefit is ~17 billion, which ends up in landlords' pockets. Putting the knife in this seems a pretty easy way into reducing the budget deficit, which stands at ~100 billion.. Not hard to see, yet no politician even seems to realize what a distorting effect** the housing benefit scheme has. **) For those that find it hard to believe. Try to find a rental accommodation in your area that asks less than the local allowed housing benefit. Good luck!
  14. That explanation indeed helps a lot as it now makes sense to me why one needs to compare M4 money supply with the nominal graph.
  15. We are indeed a disgrace, but I'm sure I'm not the only one struggling with this. Anyway thanks for the extensive explanation! One minor question remains. If I understand you correctly the graph on the frontpage is adjusted for inflation by adjusting prices in the past to compensate for inflation. Is the trend-line of 2.9% annual increase hence above the inflation-number they use to calculate these graphs?
  16. Both graphs explicitly state that they use nationwide as the source, so that's not it. I must be the word "nominal prices" vs "real prices" on the y-axis, whatever they mean by it in this context.
  17. @long time lurking: strange that your house-price graph doesn't match with the one on the frontpage, ie the one below. The amounts don't match. Any clue why they are different?
  18. I really don't see this happen without something triggering a serious interest rate increase affecting those on trackers. At the moment I find it hard to see what would trigger this.
  19. Please keep in mind that "first-time" buyer is very, very misleading as it includes those that have previously owned a house. The definition used in a lot of statistics is as follows: -- First time buyers, in our statistics from the Regulated Mortgage Survey, are households that move into owner occupation without having to sell a property. Therefore numbers will include some buyers who have previously owned a property before, but are not in owner occupation at the time of purchase. -- source:https://www.gov.uk/housing-market-and-house-price-information-notes-and-definitions Something that very few people seem to realize!
  20. So people have to pay tax, but can't actually rely on the safety-net that is supported by paying tax. While those that don't pay tax can (as long as they are British) ....the logic evades me. The much more practical approach is to simply fix this by having a contribution based benefit system that is very common in many Northern European countries. If you haven't paid tax the support by the state is pretty rudimentary and makes the system both fairer to everyone as well as working more attractive. That is a pretty easy way in which you discourage some of the excesses that you see happening in the UK..... However doing something this obvious, that is compatible with EU-regulations, clearly is too difficult for the average politician. Much easier to shout random ideas without thinking about HOW you are going to implement them. This "Labour sound bite" being one of those again in my opinion.
  21. It comes from a rule of thumb that is pretty easy to remember: the time it takes to double the original amount is 70 divided by the percentage of interest.
  22. I honestly don't understand the problem. You have done your homework, which gives you objective evidence that nearby properties built around the same time have sold for prices below the 2006 price. A mortgage valuer will use that same information to come to the conclusion that the price should hence be nearer the 2006 price for this property as well. This in itself will therefore directly affect any valuation as part of obtaining a mortgage, making it unlikely to secure a high enough mortgage. So the only conclusion you should reach is that this asking price is fantasy/kite flying. As a result it is best to ignore this property as it is unlikely that the seller suddenly would get real and drop by 120k. The bottom line is that you should treat any asking price as an arbitrary number....it is up to you as a buyer to determine what it is worth to you based on actual evidence as you have done.
  23. And the last time I looked my landlord was responsible for maintenance, kitchen-appliances, washing machine, building-insurance, etc. Obviously GBP 1300 a year leaves plenty of space cash once all of that has been paid.
  24. Why are you surprised....the government is running a deficit and it is the deficit that they try to bring down with those spending cuts not the debt. And a deficit tells you the government spends more than it takes in. So by definition the government will borrow more every single year. Moreover this deficit is in fact a bigger fraction of GDP than a country as Italy had when they got into serious trouble. ps) The above also shows that every single politician that states the are bringing down the debt is talking utter b#llocks
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information