Our Daily Debt. A Blog From The Courts

[lets get it right]

Except for the missing apostrophe

It's completely appropriate. This generation has not been taught by my generation where the apostrophe should go. My children are not stupid. I have told them where apostrophes should go and they understand it. Unfortunately, none of their various English teachers has seen fit to tell them.

[Fool's Gold]

It's completely appropriate. This generation has not been taught by my generation where the apostrophe should go. My children are not stupid. I have told them where apostrophes should go and they understand it. Unfortunately, none of their various English teachers has seen fit to tell them.

Yes it is amusing when I hear old buggers moaning on about grammar and spelling when it should be the older and wiser eerr.. i.e. THEM who should have instructed them/us better. I know my grammar is poor. I once mentioned this to one of my university lecturer's and pointed out that I distinctly do not remember being taught the rules of grammar in my English lessons. Instead I remember having to read umpteen bloody books in which a woman was the heroine (just keeping the sexist 'argument' going). Oh yeah.. you know what I'm going to say next... my English teacher was a Woman. Am I sexist for saying that ? who cares. The FACT is the books were NOT facts. i.e. those women 'heroines' were NOT real they had just been made up. And it's easy to make up anything to whatever way you want. Just look at self-certifying mortgages...

[mitchbux]

It's completely appropriate. This generation has not been taught by my generation where the apostrophe should go. My children are not stupid. I have told them where apostrophes should go and they understand it. Unfortunately, none of their various English teachers has seen fit to tell them.

Too busy asking them be over-zealous with adjectives, I know.

[Laura]

How does it take £150 a week to bring up a kid, in a house that the parents pay for?

what are they eating FFS?

Cost of taxis to school; those designer shoes aren't designed for inclement weather

or for walking very far in.

............................

Just been reading more of the guy's blog http://ourdailydebt.wordpress.com/2009/09/ He should be compulsory reading for all.

I have them all saved for the evening read.

A mortgage possession hearing. I had a look at the land registry entry for the property: bought in early 2006 for £185,000 with just one mortgage – my client’s – registered in 2007 in the sum of £20,000.

Unusual. The property enjoyed tons of equity and had to have been purchased for cash, so I was curious to discover how such a well upholstered borrower had come to this pass when lenders are so lenient on defaulters.

It turned out the borrower had bought for cash but was on … benefits! What a miraculous economy this is. She had been living in a council flat in London, and at the beginning of the decade had exercised her right to buy. As usual, the purchase price was well below market valuation – £45,000 v £60,000 – and the borrower had decided to sell in 2005, just when people thought the bubble was about to burst. Of course we know the bubble kept inflating after a pause for breath, but still it was nice timing because the price achieved was £200,000, netting about £150,000.

She quit London and went to live in the Canaries for a while, but returned with a plan – based on the belief still held by many that property can only go up – to invest her sale proceeds in a flat on the south coast. With some savings – she didn’t say how she’d made these – she was able to buy for cash, no mortgage.

Good for her, I suppose. But in the following year the property was mortgaged for £20,000. Then she had a falling out with her husband, and it all got a bit nasty, with her leaving the property with the kids and hiding her new address from him. The payments stopped, and everything went in to limbo, although she was still receiving benefits. Strangely, she is now on the homeless register, even though she has an address and a property at which she could reside. I couldn’t get any more detail than that.

So what did she propose to do about her mortgage debt? Happily, she had received an offer of £150,000 on the property. Unhappily, the purchaser had decided lately to lower the offer to £130,000. The borrower was aghast – “two years ago they valued the bloody place at £235,000!” I did my market forces spiel, but she could not be shifted from the view that she would be selling at half price.

In the end, the judge made a possession order suspended on repayment terms. Fact is, the borrower simply asserted that she had the income to make those payments, and the judge accepted the assertion in the knowledge that if the payments defaulted then it was a step closer to an outright possession.

What to say about this situation? People like this are not in work and make no contribution. They get a great deal from the taxpayer on a property removed from the public stock. Then they hand a great chunk of value to the banks. And finally they expect to be propped up when the consequences of their behaviour are visited upon them.

This borrower is still in a great position. Even though the market has clawed back a lot of the gifted wealth, if she sold now she’d still clear in excess of £100,000 simply for having been in the right place at the right time. Will her greed bring it all crashing down? Who can say?

Is it just, that someone who is essentially idle can walk off with the fruits of other people’s labour? That they can then throw those fruits in to the jaws of the lenders and still expect more from those labours? I suppose it is, because the voters consent to this state of affairs. And there would be uproar generally if people like this had their benefits withdrawn because of existing equity in a property.

But it feels so wrong.

[corevalue]

Cost of taxis to school; those designer shoes aren't designed for inclement weather

or for walking very far in.

............................

Just been reading more of the guy's blog http://ourdailydebt....ss.com/2009/09/ He should be compulsory reading for all.

I have them all saved for the evening read.

Is it just, that someone who is essentially idle can walk off with the fruits of other people’s labour? That they can then throw those fruits in to the jaws of the lenders and still expect more from those labours? I suppose it is, because the voters consent to this state of affairs. And there would be uproar generally if people like this had their benefits withdrawn because of existing equity in a property.

I'm a voter, or would be if there was anyone standing in my constituency who held my views. I don't remember the electorate being asked whether they approved of this state of affairs. Does anyone else recall being asked if it was OK to shell out our taxes for the likes of this woman?

So why do the journalists make out that we consent. I bloody well don't, for a start.

[Jadoube]

Yes it is amusing when I hear old buggers moaning on about grammar and spelling when it should be the older and wiser eerr.. i.e. THEM who should have instructed them/us better. I know my grammar is poor. I once mentioned this to one of my university lecturer's and pointed out that I distinctly do not remember being taught the rules of grammar in my English lessons. Instead I remember having to read umpteen bloody books in which a woman was the heroine (just keeping the sexist 'argument' going). Oh yeah.. you know what I'm going to say next... my English teacher was a Woman. Am I sexist for saying that ? who cares. The FACT is the books were NOT facts. i.e. those women 'heroines' were NOT real they had just been made up. And it's easy to make up anything to whatever way you want. Just look at self-certifying mortgages...

Reading umpteen bloody books can be one way of picking up adequate spelling and grammar. The books don't need to be factual, fiction works equally well for this purpose. Can be more effective than rote learning 'the rules'. The trick is to read the books rather than complain about having to read them.

[@contradevian]

That blog is quite depressing. I don't think I can read any more. OK, well done to the author, though they are taking quite a risk.

[Fool's Gold]

Reading umpteen bloody books can be one way of picking up adequate spelling and grammar.  The books don't need to be factual, fiction works equally well for this purpose.  Can be more effective than rote learning 'the rules'.  The trick is to read the books rather than complain about having to read them.  

Oh I read books, but most of them are technical. I find it hard to complete any fictional book. I'm not one for language though just as some people are not for physics,mathematics and electronics (which I am). I just find fictional books er,, frankly.. boring. they don't teach me anything unlike a technical book.

[okaycuckoo]

That blog is quite depressing. I don't think I can read any more. OK, well done to the author, though they are taking quite a risk.

You're about to get more depressed:

http://ourdailydebt....laugh-you-must/

Guess I should paste the text:

Yesterday I met a failed property developer who’s up the creek. The arrears on his sole remaining Buy-To-Let mortgage of £135k are about £8k, and he hasn’t made a payment for over a year, from about the same time the former tenant refused to pay her rent. But he’s got a new tenant paying £650 a month when the monthly instalment is only £450.

The property business collapsed because the banks “screwed up” – no awareness that he was an accomplice in the screwing – and when he did find a tenant he had to keep back the rent for months to fund improvements to the property to make it habitable after the damage done by the former tenant. So he says.

Now it’s all OK. He offered to pay the monthly instalment plus £200 per month to clear the arrears.

How can he suddenly afford it? He’s just started to receive £150 a week in pension credit, another wire in the impenetrable time-bomb that is our welfare and taxation system. And … [drum roll] … the government pays £450 per month in Support for Mortgage Interest on his own residence. And there is no time limit on those payments – they go on … until the UK defaults on its obligations and everyone says, We told you so.

Got that? He owns two properties, both with hefty mortgages, and his only earned income is the money he receives from a young renter who would probably buy the BTL if only the price would come down, say, once it’s admitted that the mortgage is dead and the property must be flogged.

The only consolation is that SMI payments, which have resulted in overpayments for 92% of recipients, are to have their rate reduced from 6.08% to the average mortgage rate published by the Bank of England, about 3.6%, from 01 October 2010.

Someone’s getting screwed, but it’s not this “victim” of the banking crisis.

Edited September 21, 2010 by okaycuckoo

[juvenal]

You're about to get more depressed:

http://ourdailydebt....laugh-you-must/

Guess I should paste the text:

Yesterday I met a failed property developer who’s up the creek. The arrears on his sole remaining Buy-To-Let mortgage of £135k are about £8k, and he hasn’t made a payment for over a year, from about the same time the former tenant refused to pay her rent. But he’s got a new tenant paying £650 a month when the monthly instalment is only £450.

The property business collapsed because the banks “screwed up” – no awareness that he was an accomplice in the screwing – and when he did find a tenant he had to keep back the rent for months to fund improvements to the property to make it habitable after the damage done by the former tenant. So he says.

Now it’s all OK. He offered to pay the monthly instalment plus £200 per month to clear the arrears.

How can he suddenly afford it? He’s just started to receive £150 a week in pension credit, another wire in the impenetrable time-bomb that is our welfare and taxation system. And … [drum roll] … the government pays £450 per month in Support for Mortgage Interest on his own residence. And there is no time limit on those payments – they go on … until the UK defaults on its obligations and everyone says, We told you so.

Got that? He owns two properties, both with hefty mortgages, and his only earned income is the money he receives from a young renter who would probably buy the BTL if only the price would come down, say, once it’s admitted that the mortgage is dead and the property must be flogged.

The only consolation is that SMI payments, which have resulted in overpayments for 92% of recipients, are to have their rate reduced from 6.08% to the average mortgage rate published by the Bank of England, about 3.6%, from 01 October 2010.

Someone’s getting screwed, but it’s not this “victim” of the banking crisis.

http://www.rightstobenefits.com/seniors/pension_credit_advice.htm

Have a look through all the rules regarding Pension Credit. Means tested savings includes 'any land or property you own'. I'm afraid I don't believe the posted article.

Edited September 21, 2010 by juvenal

[Si1]

http://www.rightstob...edit_advice.htm

Have a look through all the rules regarding Pension Credit. Means tested savings includes 'any land or property you own'. I'm afraid I don't believe the posted article.

he may have lied on the DHSS application - like he may have lied on his BTL mortgage applications etc

plus if he is mortgaged on the other property it might not count???

[juvenal]

he may have lied on the DHSS application - like he may have lied on his BTL mortgage applications etc

plus if he is mortgaged on the other property it might not count???

There's some jiggery-pokery somewhere, that's for sure..

[Game_Over]

It's annoying to see these over-generous benefits to undeserving cases. But they are unsustainable.

And when they finish, would you rather be someone with work experience and savings, or someone in for a short, sharp, shock?

They can only stop benefits if they can find people jobs

And this isn't going to happen because Labour flooded the country with cheap immigrant labour

There are answers but they are far more radical than the current government is willing to contemplate

So basically we are screwed.

[okaycuckoo]

http://www.rightstob...edit_advice.htm

Have a look through all the rules regarding Pension Credit. Means tested savings includes 'any land or property you own'. I'm afraid I don't believe the posted article.

Good point. Is equity the thing, like "you may own the place but it's only really worth (mortgage debt) - (valuation)"? Or is it the income from the property? If it is the income, gobbled up by the mortgage, does it count? Give the linked hotline a ring!

Payments are payments no matter what the rules say and the blog seems very frank. If there were a UK blog like this about questionable transfers of money in the banking industry would you have the same doubt?

[exiges]

They can only stop benefits if they can find people jobs

Not to mention the person in question was retired, and in no need of a job.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Good point. Is equity the thing, like "you may own the place but it's only really worth (mortgage debt) - (valuation)"? Or is it the income from the property? If it is the income, gobbled up by the mortgage, does it count? Give the linked hotline a ring!

No, J was selective in his/her quote. Owning your home doesn't count, click his/her link, and I can easily believe the BTL is undeclared.

[leicestersq]

Things have to change, thats for sure. Making kids things that earn money has to end.

Stop Child benefit. Stop CSA payments if one parent wants to look after their child, but is unable to.

We gotta have a citizens income, a disability income (decided by Doctors, with a capped fund, so if someone gets more, someone else gets less, let the Doctors think about how they are allocating the money), and a pension.

Sell off all council housing to the highest bidder.

And lets see how we get on with that. Scamming and gaming the system will end.

You will be amazed how well people get on when they have take responsibility.

[pete.hpc]

Let me get this straight: £60,000 of her debts are going to paid off by the taxpayer

The taxpayer doesn't pay someone's debts in bankruptcy

[Bob Loblaw]

They can only stop benefits if they can find people jobs

And this isn't going to happen because Labour flooded the country with cheap immigrant labour

There are answers but they are far more radical than the current government is willing to contemplate

So basically we are screwed.

The NHS is a prime example of how savings could be made. People bleat on about how the NHS is supported by immigrant labour. Yet the demand put on the NHS by immigrants is never measured and in my experience immigrants tend to heavily use (and abuse) NHS services. An example being the high number of births to foreign mothers.

Now if the immigrant demand on the NHS was removed (by removing the immigrants) there would be less of a need for immigrant workers within the NHS.

Simple really.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Bob Loblaw