Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

head for the hills!

New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About head for the hills!

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. It would get a bit repetitive if each time a male politican appeared on TV we had to keep on at how fat, lazy, odd looking etc they appeared. Similarly, if Anne Widdicombe was on nobody would make any comment on her appearance either. The difference with Caroline Flint is that she is supposed to be one of the "babes", seems to have appeared on lots of photo shoots, and therefore is fair game. But that's not the main point. Regarding the other comments, she gave a bad interview - she appeared to get visibly riled (which is another bad habit of hers) which makes her look as if she is defensive, and in the wrong. Good politicians can appear to answer the question without actually doing so, and don't get stroppy with the interviewer. I wasn't expecting to agree with her, but I also wasn't expecting to turn the tv off part-way through the interview because she was irritating me so much.
  2. She was cringe-worthingly awful. Refused to answer the questions, went on about "its August, of course the housing market is slow", and then couldn't help herself but put in a dig about the failure of the stamp duty holiday under the conservatives (17 years ago!). Self preservation is the order of the day. PS She did look particularly rough last night, and appeared to speak out of one side of her mouth
  3. "Rents across London have started to fall by as much as 20 per cent as a glut of supply forces landlords to cut prices." http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8d0ba90-6005-11...0077b07658.html Makes even more sense to stay in rented for now.
  4. I think you forgot quite an important "a" in your first sentence. From what I can gather every other person is a Managing Director at Merrill Lynch and the like. First time I met one I was quite impressed and thought they must have been important... second time round a bit less so.
  5. Portillo is an excellent example of someone whose face didn't fit - in Cameron's body he'd have made an excellent opposition leader / PM
  6. Thanks for the comments. I don't suppose the advert mentioned the windows at all, but the inventory (at the date we moved in) did mention that the windows were broken. We did complain at the time (as we wanted to be able to use the window) but as the LL said they would look at getting it replaced we didn't pursue. Probably we should have refused to sign the inventory / complete the tenancy agreement at the time we found out about the problem, but with two small children, one week to go on the previous house we were living in, and mid-January that wasn't really an option. There are other windows in the room, so I don't think that would work and the LL got her builder to fix a wooden batten to the decking outside the door so that no-one could open it accidentally...
  7. Earlier this year I moved into a rented house with my wife and 2 small children (baby and toddler). At the back of the house are two large floor to ceiling windows that provide access to the garden. Although there is other access to the garden the other access is not child friendly. These windows are a major selling point of the house and one of the reasons we took the house. On the day that we moved in (in January) the landlord said that the hinges on the windows were broken and that we should not use them at all as use could cause the windows to fall off their hinges. She said that they would look at replacing the windows later in the year. She has now said that she does not intend to replace the windows but that we cannot use those windows. :angry: Had we known at the time that we signed the rental agreement that the windows would not be useable we almost certainly would not have rented the house. Two questions: - if we continue to use the window and the hinges breaks, who pays? - can we force the landlord to replace the window?
  8. This is my email: Dear Sirs I am writing to state my objection to any proposed relaxation in the lending criteria applied by the Bank of England in respect of UK banks, particularly if this results in the Bank of England accepting lower quality mortgage bonds as collateral for UK treasury bonds. In my view this would constitute a “bail-out” of the UK banking sector and would transfer some of the risk of issuing mortgages from the banks to the UK taxpayer. This is not an acceptable use of taxpayer money. The mortgage banks operate in a highly developed free market and employ thousands of personnel to assess risk and strategy (resulting in significant profits for companies and individuals in recent periods). As such the mortgage banks should find commercial solutions to the difficulties that they now find themselves in (largely as a result of taking on too much risk and applying lax lending practices). Please log my complaint. I look forward to receiving a reply. Yours faithfully
  9. I think the problem here is your main assumption that it is based on value and not cost. I've been involved in a self-build (admittedly in France) and it was all about the cost, releasing the mortage funds as costs were incurred. Nobody is going to come along and value your foundations. Once you've completed the house if you think it is then worth more than you paid you could probably remortgage.
  10. So long as the cost of "bailing out" the 100%+ mortgagees is factored into the price paid for NR by the government, then the bank should continue to loan to these customers at its normal rates. People (most financially illiterate) were duped into believing that house prices only ever go up and that they could borrow more than they needed - they should never have been lent the money. It is not necessary their fault that things are going tits up.
  11. Great post - exactly right. The job of the government should be to make our lives as easy as possible (within certain constrictions). Over the last few years the general movement has been to make things more difficult without given the general public any real benefit, and with the additional huge debt that individuals have been encouraged to take on to support the economy. I liked (& voted for) Blair because he did at least have a bit of personality, and at the time new-labour seemed to be pro-choice. Cameron has something of Blair about him. Only time will tell if that is a good thing.
  12. There's a good article in the Independent about the end of buy to let. Included in the article is a quote from the finance director of Paragon "There is a higher borrowing cost, and that may slow down activity," he continues. "But if you look at someone who took out a mortgage two or three years ago, then while they may have to pay 1.5 per cent more on their mortgage now, their rents have grown 15 per cent over that time." If you don't stop to think about what he said he appears to be saying that rents have grown at a higher rate than the interest but this is completely misleading because if the BTLer previously had an interest rate of 6%, but is now paying 7.5% the interest cost has increased 25%.
  13. STM in Feb 2007 - returning from France. Was initially looking to buy in UK but can't justify why asking prices are what they are so have decided to rent for at least the next 18 months or so with family (wife, 1 child and 1 on the way). At some point we'll have to buy to ensure stability for the family, but at the moment feel very comfortable with the decision. Of course parents and parents-in-law don't understand but there is something to be said for having money in the bank, no debt, & living in a better house than you could afford to buy for significantly less rent than the mortgage (i/o) would be. What I don't understand is why other people don't get this. There is only so long that an asset can remain at over inflated values with no sound fundamentals. I don't believe in an imminent crash but I don't believe that HPI will be no more than 2-3% over the next 5 years.
  14. My parents-in-law live in Lichfield, so over the last 12 years or so I've been up there a fair few times. They live in a part of Boley Park and moved in when it was constructed about 23 years ago. It's nice enough, very middle class and I've never seen any sign of trouble. The gardens in those houses are usually bigger than the postage stamp gardens that you tend to get these days, and it is possible to walk into the centre of lichfield in 15 minutes. I can't say I know the whole of Boley park, but it seems to have been built before the days that you had to mix 5 bed houses with 2 bed flats. There's a huge range of pubs and restaurants in Lichfield and whilst there are lots of youths wandering the streets of a weekend it doesn't seem to have the negative atmosphere that you get in some town centres (e.g Reading). They seem to be building a huge number of new houses around Lichfield - there is a big estate near the new Waitrose - the Waitrose may be a sign of gentrification in its own right. I'm not sure what impact that additional housing is having on the prices there, but I don't get the impression that they are suffering from rampant house price inflation at the moment. Have to say though, if I had to commute into Birmingham and wanted to live near Lichfield, I would chose one of the villages nearby - you have the benefit of a nice large town on the doorstep yet can have a bit more character. Some of the villages are quite nice.
  • 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.