Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Bruce Banner

Bbc News Really Going For It Today

Recommended Posts

Major article featuring Ray Boulger and an EA from the NAEA.

Main points:

Prices went up 6% over the last year.

Rents are going up.

Cheaper to buy than rent, but banks wont lend the money.

They also featured a young couple, with baby, living apart with parents because they can't get a £80K mortgage. Bloke was angry because he thinks he should decide if he can afford a mortgage, not the lender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major article featuring Ray Boulger and an EA from the NAEA.

Main points:

Prices went up 6% over the last year.

Rents are going up.

Cheaper to buy than rent, but banks wont lend the money.

They also featured a young couple, with baby, living apart with parents because they can't get a £80K mortgage. Bloke was angry because he thinks he should decide if he can afford a mortgage, not the lender.

Ye, i get angry when people say i can't afford a Lamborgini Diablo or a luxury boat, I mean if i say i can afford it then obviously i can! It's my choice right!

It may be cheaper to buy in many parts of the country but in London im not sure that's the case in most areas - either way when you look at it purely as 'what's cheaper to do, buy or rent?' it kind of misses the point if both are a crazy percentage of monthly income. I mean if it costs 50% of my take home pay to rent and only 45% to buy I'm not going to happily look at the math and decide, i'm going to be bloody furious that before my council tax, gas, electic etc. ive already lost half my wages on a bloody roof over my head...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously pissed off with Boulger and Coogan and the like. I've written a letter to the independent regarding there FSA catastrophe article. I'll send the same letter to any other paper that carries an article on the FSA proposals. Hopefully it will get printed.

Edit: And as for the NAEA, their websites latest news is 'market sees post election jump'! It's a joke....

Edited by Pent Up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously pissed off with Boulger and Coogan and the like. I've written a letter to the independent regarding there FSA catastrophe article. I'll send the same letter to any other paper that carries an article on the FSA proposals. Hopefully it will get printed.

Good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they've been plugging it for the last week or so, particularly the rising rents (using windsor as the nations example :blink: |)

i think that maybe they've accepted that the capital gains are not going to come, prices are heading for freefall and so they're trying to plug the hole by asking more for rent, which unsurprisingly, won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On again now.

Yep has the sound of desperation written all over it

The wind is increasing and the house of cards is wobbling more as the weeks go by,they now no the buyers sentiment has changed the fun and games maybe about to start ,I think we will see more and more desperate clutching at straws in the next couple of months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep has the sound of desperation written all over it

The wind is increasing and the house of cards is wobbling more as the weeks go by,they now no the buyers sentiment has changed the fun and games maybe about to start ,I think we will see more and more desperate clutching at straws in the next couple of months

The thing that annoyed me most was the pushing of the year on year +6% with no mention that prices have been falling, as much as 3.7% a month, for the last three or four months.

The EAs and lenders are getting free airtime to ramp property prices on the country's main News channel, which is paid for by our license fee :(.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that annoyed me most was the pushing of the year on year +6% with no mention that prices have been falling, as much as 3.7% a month, for the last three or four months.

The EAs and lenders are getting free airtime to ramp property prices on the country's main News channel, which is paid for by our license fee :(.

If it's biased complain

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long does it take?

Do you have any BTL properties?

How long does what take?

No, I don't have any BTL properties, I would never invest in anything that becomes so popular it has a whole industry built up around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just complained to the BBC on the lkink provided above. Don't expect anything other than a standard for response (I have asked for a reply, and I understand that they have to give some form of reply). Complaint was as follows about this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11804832

> 20 word summary of complaint: Bias in favour of commercial interests at the expense the general public interest

Full complaint:

There has been a huge amount of lobbying in general on the part of mortgage brokers and banking groups (the CML in particular) against plans by the FSA to regulate the mortgage market. These plans to regulate are entirely necessary. However, numerous articles similar to the one complained of give a one-sided view in favour of the banks and mortgage brokers, and they appear to have been written based on press releases, not any attempt at journalism.

For example this quote: "For first time buyers, many who could easily afford the monthly payments on a mortgage are prevented from buying because deposits are so high, he added." This is very selective, and does not take into account that interest rates are lower than they have ever been, and that if rates were to rise, those same people would not be able to afford their repayments. This is sensible, but nowhere is this mentioned in the article.

Also, this quote was problematic: "The lenders warn that this tougher regime would have prevented half of recent borrowers from getting a mortgage." Widely published FSA research has shown that arounf 45% of mortgage borrowers have no money left at the end of the month after basic mortgage and household bills have been paid. So, basicaly, almost half of borrowers should not have been granted mortgages of the size offered in recent years - such mortgages were risky, and only served to make the cost of living for everyone higher.

I am a potential first time buyer, and the FSA proposals to restrict lending are good for me. If lending is restricted prices will come down. Cheaper living costs are a good thing. High house prices are bad. It is as simple as that.

The main people who stand to lose from the FSA proposals are mortgage brokers, who stand to lose a lot of business. In continuing to print their press releases as news stories, the BBC is furthering a commercial interest which is completely opposed to the public interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long does what take?

No, I don't have any BTL properties, I would never invest in anything that becomes so popular it has a whole industry built up around it.

How long does it take to make a complaint via the link I posted?

You could be right, it might be pointless and won't make any difference. However one thing is certain - you won't make a difference doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just complained to the BBC on the lkink provided above. Don't expect anything other than a standard for response (I have asked for a reply, and I understand that they have to give some form of reply). Complaint was as follows about this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11804832

> 20 word summary of complaint: Bias in favour of commercial interests at the expense the general public interest

Full complaint:

There has been a huge amount of lobbying in general on the part of mortgage brokers and banking groups (the CML in particular) against plans by the FSA to regulate the mortgage market. These plans to regulate are entirely necessary. However, numerous articles similar to the one complained of give a one-sided view in favour of the banks and mortgage brokers, and they appear to have been written based on press releases, not any attempt at journalism.

For example this quote: "For first time buyers, many who could easily afford the monthly payments on a mortgage are prevented from buying because deposits are so high, he added." This is very selective, and does not take into account that interest rates are lower than they have ever been, and that if rates were to rise, those same people would not be able to afford their repayments. This is sensible, but nowhere is this mentioned in the article.

Also, this quote was problematic: "The lenders warn that this tougher regime would have prevented half of recent borrowers from getting a mortgage." Widely published FSA research has shown that arounf 45% of mortgage borrowers have no money left at the end of the month after basic mortgage and household bills have been paid. So, basicaly, almost half of borrowers should not have been granted mortgages of the size offered in recent years - such mortgages were risky, and only served to make the cost of living for everyone higher.

I am a potential first time buyer, and the FSA proposals to restrict lending are good for me. If lending is restricted prices will come down. Cheaper living costs are a good thing. High house prices are bad. It is as simple as that.

The main people who stand to lose from the FSA proposals are mortgage brokers, who stand to lose a lot of business. In continuing to print their press releases as news stories, the BBC is furthering a commercial interest which is completely opposed to the public interest.

Well done.

When you get your reply/ruling if you aren't happy with it you can use the reference number to request an appeal from the BBC Trust. As we all know on here BBC News is blatantly biased about housing issues but the Trust should should look into claims that BBC News are not impartial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/complaints_appeals/editorial/index.shtml

They have an "Impartiality" clause:

Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of 'balance' between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

The external activities of staff, presenters and others who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC's reputation for impartiality. Consequently, this section should be read in conjunction with Section 15: Conflicts of Interest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-introduction/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if both are unaffordable to many, then that says prices are too high.

Not rocket science is it.

And yet if rents are not coming down substantially it means there IS a supply problem. Definitely a supply issue in the South West where I lived.

The only places where reasonable renting costs exist are where there has been 'over development' of apartments for example Birmingham, Liverpool and maybe Manchester and some other cities.

I say over development in quotes because it's not my opinion that these places have been over developed but that they have been developed the right amount as they cost 300-400 pounds/ month to rent a 1 bedroom apartment which is how much it should cost as opposed to where I lived in SW it would have cost 700-800.

The problem with those cities is some have massive unemployment (Liverpool) and some have massive immigration (Birmingham) so as a white male you would find it hard to get a job and rent a place anyway.. though at least you could rent one on benefits :P

In Asia it's actually an advantage to be white and speak English for job seeking, the complete opposite in Britain :lol:

Edited by Saberu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just complained to the BBC on the lkink provided above. Don't expect anything other than a standard for response (I have asked for a reply, and I understand that they have to give some form of reply). Complaint was as follows about this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11804832

> 20 word summary of complaint: Bias in favour of commercial interests at the expense the general public interest

Full complaint:

There has been a huge amount of lobbying in general on the part of mortgage brokers and banking groups (the CML in particular) against plans by the FSA to regulate the mortgage market. These plans to regulate are entirely necessary. However, numerous articles similar to the one complained of give a one-sided view in favour of the banks and mortgage brokers, and they appear to have been written based on press releases, not any attempt at journalism.

For example this quote: "For first time buyers, many who could easily afford the monthly payments on a mortgage are prevented from buying because deposits are so high, he added." This is very selective, and does not take into account that interest rates are lower than they have ever been, and that if rates were to rise, those same people would not be able to afford their repayments. This is sensible, but nowhere is this mentioned in the article.

Also, this quote was problematic: "The lenders warn that this tougher regime would have prevented half of recent borrowers from getting a mortgage." Widely published FSA research has shown that arounf 45% of mortgage borrowers have no money left at the end of the month after basic mortgage and household bills have been paid. So, basicaly, almost half of borrowers should not have been granted mortgages of the size offered in recent years - such mortgages were risky, and only served to make the cost of living for everyone higher.

I am a potential first time buyer, and the FSA proposals to restrict lending are good for me. If lending is restricted prices will come down. Cheaper living costs are a good thing. High house prices are bad. It is as simple as that.

The main people who stand to lose from the FSA proposals are mortgage brokers, who stand to lose a lot of business. In continuing to print their press releases as news stories, the BBC is furthering a commercial interest which is completely opposed to the public interest.

Well done for putting in the effort. But you will probably find that it is pointless. For two reasons.

The government wanted the FSA to impose stronger controls and more prudent lending. So it will happen regarless of a bleeting minority.

Banks do not want to, and will not have the money to lend in the same way as they did before. It is far too risky for them.

What the FSA is proposing is a long term solution, but the short term answer is well underway. Only a few mortgage brokers with their heads in the sand don't want to see that they need to change and move with the times. It's always been the same, those that don't or can't adapt will vanish. So let them just go, its the last gasp of a dying man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet if rents are not coming down substantially it means there IS a supply problem. Definitely a supply issue in the South West where I lived.

The only places where reasonable renting costs exist are where there has been 'over development' of apartments for example Birmingham, Liverpool and maybe Manchester and some other cities.

I say over development in quotes because it's not my opinion that these places have been over developed but that they have been developed the right amount as they cost 300-400 pounds/ month to rent a 1 bedroom apartment which is how much it should cost as opposed to where I lived in SW it would have cost 700-800.

The problem with those cities is some have massive unemployment (Liverpool) and some have massive immigration (Birmingham) so as a white male you would find it hard to get a job and rent a place anyway.. though at least you could rent one on benefits :P

In Asia it's actually an advantage to be white and speak English for job seeking, the complete opposite in Britain :lol:

It doesnt have to be a supply issue, artificial price fixing will also have the same effect in a market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just complained to the BBC on the lkink provided above. Don't expect anything other than a standard for response (I have asked for a reply, and I understand that they have to give some form of reply). Complaint was as follows about this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11804832

> 20 word summary of complaint: Bias in favour of commercial interests at the expense the general public interest

Full complaint:

There has been a huge amount of lobbying in general on the part of mortgage brokers and banking groups (the CML in particular) against plans by the FSA to regulate the mortgage market. These plans to regulate are entirely necessary. However, numerous articles similar to the one complained of give a one-sided view in favour of the banks and mortgage brokers, and they appear to have been written based on press releases, not any attempt at journalism.

For example this quote: "For first time buyers, many who could easily afford the monthly payments on a mortgage are prevented from buying because deposits are so high, he added." This is very selective, and does not take into account that interest rates are lower than they have ever been, and that if rates were to rise, those same people would not be able to afford their repayments. This is sensible, but nowhere is this mentioned in the article.

Also, this quote was problematic: "The lenders warn that this tougher regime would have prevented half of recent borrowers from getting a mortgage." Widely published FSA research has shown that arounf 45% of mortgage borrowers have no money left at the end of the month after basic mortgage and household bills have been paid. So, basicaly, almost half of borrowers should not have been granted mortgages of the size offered in recent years - such mortgages were risky, and only served to make the cost of living for everyone higher.

I am a potential first time buyer, and the FSA proposals to restrict lending are good for me. If lending is restricted prices will come down. Cheaper living costs are a good thing. High house prices are bad. It is as simple as that.

The main people who stand to lose from the FSA proposals are mortgage brokers, who stand to lose a lot of business. In continuing to print their press releases as news stories, the BBC is furthering a commercial interest which is completely opposed to the public interest.

Good work. Here is my complaint to the same article:

Dear Sir/Madam,

There are at least two specific areas of bias in this article. First, the assertion that "For first time buyers, many who could easily afford the monthly payments on a mortgage are prevented from buying because deposits are so high" neglects to mention that the supposed affordability is contingent on historically minimal interest rates. For balance, statements regarding mortgage affordabilty should always include a consideration of how affordability will be affected when interest rates return to historically normal levels (say 5%). Second, the article uncritically relays this industry propaganda: "The lenders warn that this tougher regime would have prevented half of recent borrowers from getting a mortgage." Here, balance requires at least the acknowledgement that the FSA disputes these figures. For example, "Another myth in the mass market is the conclusion that 50% of borrowers who would have previously got a mortgage will not get a loan if the MMR is implemented. Our data does not bear that out at all - we have never disputed that our decisions and rules, particularly those on affordability, will have an impact on the availability of mortgages in the market. But that impact may be that instead of getting a loan of £100,000, borrowers get one of £95,000 or £90,000." http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2010/1118_sn.shtml

Given that the 'credit crunch' was triggered by excessive, loose credit in the mortgage market, the requirement for proper regulation of that market is clear and urgent. To its credit, the FSA now recognises the failure of 'self-regulation' prior to the crisis and is proposing some entirely sensible regulations to protect consumers and curb the excesses of the property market in the future through the Mortgage Market Review (MMR).

There has recently been a concerted, cynical and dishonest lobbying campaign against the FSA Mortgage Market Review proposals. This campaign is being perpetrated by commercial interests including banking groups such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), mortgage brokers (as represented frequently by Ray Boulger of Charcol), and estate agents (e.g. the NAEA). These commercial groups represent their own vested interests and not the interests of the british public. Numerous articles similar to the one I am complaining about here give a one-sided view in favour of the banks and mortgage brokers, and they appear to have been written based on press releases, not any attempt at journalism.

As a prospective first time buyer from the priced out generation, I strongly support the Mortgage Market Review proposals. First time buyers will always benefit more from reduced housing costs then loose lending. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us know how you get on about the Telegraph article 'tother day ("Renting is more expensive than buying", based on Zoopla biased research).

OK.

Maybe we should have a rolling thread of articles/news programs that we should complain about and the results of the complaints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.