Btl Scum Regrouping And On The Offensive. -- Merged

[mrtickle]

I agree benefits should be cut somewhere, but there have been so few cuts already with massive screams of anguish every time.

The only fundamental change that's got through is the 2-child limit. And because of the softly-softly approach, it's only for new babies, so that's 16 years we have to wait for the full savings.

Meanwhile, after Labour being mostly quiet other than criticising what they call "the rape clause", I have noticed a big shift in behaviour recently. Now every time "the cuts" are mentioned (what cuts), the Labour politician lists all the things Labour should do, and they INCLUDE "removing the 2-child limit". Even that one thing isn't safe now.

 

[spyguy]

11 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

I agree benefits should be cut somewhere, but there have been so few cuts already with massive screams of anguish every time.

The only fundamental change that's got through is the 2-child limit. And because of the softly-softly approach, it's only for new babies, so that's 16 years we have to wait for the full savings.

Meanwhile, after Labour being mostly quiet other than criticising what they call "the rape clause", I have noticed a big shift in behaviour recently. Now every time "the cuts" are mentioned (what cuts), the Labour politician lists all the things Labour should do, and they INCLUDE "removing the 2-child limit". Even that one thing isn't safe now.

 

QE n ZIRP has fuxed up many things, inc. The only thing governments listen to - bond market.

Central banjs are mirons.

One, blind faith that private banks will regulate themselves...

Two, governments would wisely use QE time to reduce spending.

Economists technocrats. Biggest idiots in world.

[spyguy]

28 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Then why haven't the Tories done it? They could have avoided Brexit by cutting benefits to EEs but they couldn't even stomach that. They love giving benefits to all and sundry because it ultimately helps their rich backers - large companies and landlords who are subsidised by welfare (housing benefit/LHA and tax credits). I think they would rather squeeze the pips on the middle income workers by raising taxes than cut benefits. It's just not going to happen or it would have already. Look at the outcry regarding UC.

See my post a few back.

Its been one lot of chaos after another since 2010.

Governments have very finite capacity.

On brexit theres no laws stopping us dropping all benefits bar JSA.

 

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, fru-gal said:

Then why haven't the Tories done it? They could have avoided Brexit by cutting benefits to EEs but they couldn't even stomach that. They love giving benefits to all and sundry because it ultimately helps their rich backers - large companies and landlords who are subsidised by welfare (housing benefit/LHA and tax credits). I think they would rather squeeze the pips on the middle income workers by raising taxes than cut benefits. It's just not going to happen or it would have already. Look at the outcry regarding UC.

I don't think that they understand the system that well.  Or they are worried about being called racist.  I think they are more stupid than evil.

[Ah-so]

On 06/12/2018 at 20:59, spyguy said:

Central banjs are mirons.

An interesting observation. But not sure what this has to do with landlords.

Back on topic please!

[Pop321]

19 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't think that they understand the system that well.  Or they are worried about being called racist.  I think they are more stupid than evil.

I think the very opposite might be also possible  

Many of us are too busy to get a holistic picture of problems and issues around us and make mistakes.

However, politicans are all well aware of all views, permutations, issues....it is what they do.....debate, consider and listen. They don’t hold these positions because they are naive or stupid. 

Both sides of the house are culpable for the decisions they make. People blaming Brown...in the north it’s all still Thatchers fault....it’s almost as though there is no point voting because whoever gets into power will keep things as they are and just blame a previous government. 

And until the general public hold them to account they too are culpable. In the meantime the individuals look after themselves, government divide and conquer and the status quo remains.

Ie Ooo....Strictly is on tonight, what was I saying??

[iamnumerate]

10 hours ago, Pop321 said:

I think the very opposite might be also possible  

Many of us are too busy to get a holistic picture of problems and issues around us and make mistakes.

However, politicans are all well aware of all views, permutations, issues....it is what they do.....debate, consider and listen. They don’t hold these positions because they are naive or stupid. 

Both sides of the house are culpable for the decisions they make. People blaming Brown...in the north it’s all still Thatchers fault....it’s almost as though there is no point voting because whoever gets into power will keep things as they are and just blame a previous government. 

And until the general public hold them to account they too are culpable. In the meantime the individuals look after themselves, government divide and conquer and the status quo remains.

Ie Ooo....Strictly is on tonight, what was I saying??

If we had politicians who were super intelligent manipulating us to make the rich richer for example, I think the economy would be growing faster than it is. I think with regards to HPI, tax credits etc they are short term ideas but no one has the courage to get rid of in the long term.  A bit like someone who feels a bit down eats a chocolate bar and 10 years later is 20kg overweight, they didn't plan it, they just never planned to stop it.

If they are super intelligent they are amazing actors.  Anyone who looks at Teresa May and see a genius is either a) amazingly perceptive or b) hallucinating.

My money is on b but I could be wrong (I hope I have explained why I think it is b).

Edited December 9, 2018 by iamnumerate

[Dyson Fury]

Some good entertainment here:

https://www.property118.com/negative-equity-banks-responsible/

Quote

A few of my houses are coming to their end of term and the lenders want their money back.

They knew my exit strategy was refinance or sale, but now they don’t seem to recognise any responsibility for the negative equity.

When the banking crisis occurred it followed naturally that house prices dropped dramatically as lenders either folded (albeit bailed out by the government) or sold their book to others. (Not necessarily even lenders).

The banking crisis was caused by reckless lending and the banks ran out of money and were unable to continue their business. The bankers have apologised unreservedly for their error of judgement. Great! But now when some areas are still struggling with negative equity they should (in my opinion) extend the mortgage for a lifetime. Or if they want to recoup their capital reduce the amount owing to an amount that would enable refinancing.

The FCA do not regulate buy to let mortgages, however, the mortgage is a contract. In contract “every contract has an implied contract term that the lender will perform the contract with care and skill”. Surely lending recklessly and being unable to sustain your business, which then has the knock on effect of destroying the value of my investment, is lacking in the performance of care and skill?

There is so much more I can add to this argument but would like to hear a reasonable response that says I’m wrong. I just cannot see it any other way.

But would appreciate your comments.

Gwen

"I borrowed some money to buy an asset which has gone down in value, so I have lost money and am now in debt.  This must all be someone else's fault, so my debts should be forgiven" etc etc.

No mention of all the rental income she has received from these properties! 

She is getting a real mullering in the comments, even from the 118ers!

Quote

Sorry, Gwen. Reality check. No. You borrowed the money. You have to repay it. The banks are not legally responsible for your negative equity and there is no implied term that they have to keep on lending especially if you are in negative equity. You have zero chance legally of winning this point against them. Nor are the banks going to "reduce the amount owing to an amount that would enable refinancing".

 

Quote

 I quite understand it's upsetting and stressful to find yourself in negative equity. However, it was your decision to invest and to borrow to the extent you did. If the housing market ripped up, would you be keen to be sharing your profits with the banks? I suspect not.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Dyson Fury

[oatbake]

33 minutes ago, Dyson Fury said:

Some good entertainment here:

https://www.property118.com/negative-equity-banks-responsible/

"I borrowed some money to buy an asset which has gone down in value, so I have lost money and am now in debt.  This must all be someone else's fault, so my debts should be forgiven" etc etc.

No mention of all the rental income she has received from these properties! 

She is getting a real mullering in the comments, even from the 118ers!

 

 

 

Brutal. But fair. Good find!

[mrtickle]

Quote

Ian Narbeth
15:20 PM, 12th December 2018
About 10 hours ago

Reply to the comment left by Gwen Davies at 12/12/2018 - 15:07

Gwen
I have been practising law for over thirty years. Your reading of the Heron case is just wrong. In Heron the delivery was late and as a result the sugar was sold at a lower price because the market had gone down. That has nothing to do with your case. As Alexander Pope said: "A little learning is a dangerous thing."
What performance breach are you alleging the bank committed? Causing the banking crisis? Causing the value of your specific properties to fall? How? Even if it did those things - unprovable - there was no implied term that the bank wouldn't cause a market crash. There was no implied term that the bank would sustain house prices. The bank lent you the money. That is pretty much the end of their responsibility apart from maintaining accurate ledgers and providing statements of interest.

[Queasing]

10 hours ago, Dyson Fury said:

Some good entertainment here:

https://www.property118.com/negative-equity-banks-responsible/

 

This truly is heartwarming. The levels of stupidity exhibited are staggering. Hope to see much more of this indignation and squealing from idiotic BTL landlords early next year.

 

[Pop321]

12 hours ago, Dyson Fury said:

Some good entertainment here:

https://www.property118.com/negative-equity-banks-responsible/

"I borrowed some money to buy an asset which has gone down in value, so I have lost money and am now in debt.  This must all be someone else's fault, so my debts should be forgiven" etc etc.

No mention of all the rental income she has received from these properties! 

She is getting a real mullering in the comments, even from the 118ers!

 

 

Agree, it’s a great find. 

The frustrating thing is that no matter now much you try.......the author (ie the BTL’er) will always always believe it wasn’t their fault. Even at the end that will be their belief....bank, tenant, government, HPC forum...it’s someone else. 

Far too many people like this.

Entitled, single vision, no business acumen and still somehow believing S24 will go away once ‘we’ all realise the ‘unintended consequence’ (separate subject but illustrates the point)  

We cant change their unweilding belief that they are right....  and the only solice is the longer they believe their own misplaced beliefs and hang onto their debt ridden dream.....the worse the impact on them?

Thx for posting ?

[Houdini]

12 hours ago, Dyson Fury said:

Some good entertainment here:

https://www.property118.com/negative-equity-banks-responsible/

"I borrowed some money to buy an asset which has gone down in value, so I have lost money and am now in debt.  This must all be someone else's fault, so my debts should be forgiven" etc etc.

No mention of all the rental income she has received from these properties! 

She is getting a real mullering in the comments, even from the 118ers!

 

 

I can't post on there but she needs to speak to https://www.landlorddebtadvisory.com/news/are-you-a-landlord-with-a-property-in-negative-equity/ who may be able to help her but I suspect (and hope) will just fleece her for a few grand...

 

[mrtickle]

I hope she posts again next month, having only just discovered section 24, worried about her bill.

 

[Houdini]

10 hours ago, mrtickle said:

I hope she posts again next month, having only just discovered section 24, worried about her bill.

 

I doubt she's ever filled in a tax return so it won't be in January, more likely it will be in May when HMRC ask where it was... 

[rantnrave]

Scottish Budget raises its version of Stamp Duty surcharge from 3% to 4%

https://www.propertyindustryeye.com/

The Scottish Government has proposed raising the levy on its version of the Stamp Duty surcharge, the Additional Dwelling Supplement, for purchases of additional properties, from 3% to 4%.

The tax is similar to the Stamp Duty rate south of the border and finance secretary David Mackay used his Budget to suggest that raising the surcharge would help first-time buyers.

He said: “As well as building more houses we are continuing to protect those buying their first home and progressing through the property market with our progressive land and buildings transaction tax.

“But for those purchasing additional properties I am proposing to increase the Additional Dwelling Supplement from 3% to 4%.”

If approved, the rate change will come into force on January 25.

David Alexander, managing director of property management firm DJ Alexander, said: “Although many will believe that those buying second properties can afford any level of tax that the Scottish Government wishes to impose on them, the truth is that increasing the rate of this tax at a time when many landlords are exiting the private rented sector market could have serious implications.

“Taxing them a 4% higher rate is unlikely to attract many property investors to Scotland who will be able to buy cheaper properties just across the border.

“Although Mackay undoubtedly sees this as a progressive tax on wealth, the results could be the loss of a substantial part of the private rented sector which is not being replaced in any meaningful way with social housing.

“Quite where he expects the people currently living in the PRS to live if more landlords leave the market and none come in to replace them is not explained.

“Making Scotland a less attractive place to invest in property is likely to result in lower government revenues rather than higher ones over the medium to long term.”

The UK Government has in recent times followed Scotland’s lead on several housing issues, including the tenant fee ban.

[mrtickle]

7 hours ago, rantnrave said:

Scottish Budget raises its version of Stamp Duty surcharge from 3% to 4%

https://www.propertyindustryeye.com/

The Scottish Government has proposed raising the levy on its version of the Stamp Duty surcharge, the Additional Dwelling Supplement, for purchases of additional properties, from 3% to 4%.

[....]

“Quite where he expects the people currently living in the PRS to live if more landlords leave the market and none come in to replace them is not explained.

Well, perhaps they'll live in those same houses which the landlords sold; which will not be knocked down?

Brilliant news. And such short notice! Some landlords may be in the middle of a purchase process, having paid deposits, etc! LOL!

 

[Dyson Fury]

More entertainment here:

https://www.property118.com/landlord-vote-goes/

Ros is interested to know how landlords intend to vote in the next General Election, which might come round quite soon.

It goes without saying that they can't understand how any landlord could possibly vote Conservative (although Ros is a member, if only to get her pro-landlord articles published on the "Conservative Home" website...), after the disaster of Osbourne's Section 24 and all its unintended consequences.

Neither can they understand how any landlord could possibly vote Labour, as Mr Corbyn is undoubtedly even more hostile to landlords, and might intend to levy punitive taxes or even confiscate their properties.

Labour are in the lead in her poll!

Though it seems, the poll has probably been "hijacked" by "leftists" (i.e. tenants) , after she accidentally publicised it on a "landlord and tenant" website, as well as ones targeted only at landlords.

If I were more technically minded about computers and websites and such stuff, I would possibly notice that the webpage is so badly programmed that, after voting, merely going to the next page of comments re-opens the original header page and allows you to vote again.  Luckily for Ros, I'm a bit of a technophobe and haven't noticed that, so I can't possibly comment on it.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Dyson Fury

[Man of Kent]

It's a shame when these things are badly programmed. Apparently. pressing F5 on some of them after voting, then confirming form resubmission, causes your vote to be cast again. Or so the rumour goes, I wouldn't know *innocent face*

[Bear Hug]

1 hour ago, Dyson Fury said:

If I were more technically minded about computers and websites and such stuff, I would possibly notice that the webpage is so badly programmed that, after voting, merely going to the next page of comments re-opens the original header page and allows you to vote again.  Luckily for Ros, I'm a bit of a technophobe and haven't noticed that, so I can't possibly comment on it.

I can't possibly take all the credit as there were clearly other contributors, but I and my mobile phone are responsible for at least 50 labour/labour choices on that ridiculous poll accessible by absolutely everyone.  I started when I found it this morning and then topped up a couple of times when labour lost their lead

[BorrowToLeech]

1 hour ago, mrtickle said:

Well, perhaps they'll live in those same houses which the landlords sold; which will not be knocked down?

Brilliant news. And such short notice! Some landlords may be in the middle of a purchase process, having paid deposits, etc! LOL!

 

Didn’t buy in the first place. 

Thats his argument. If landlords don’t buy homes, those homes won’t be available for other people.  Mental. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by BorrowToLeech

[Bear Hug]

18 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

It's a shame when these things are badly programmed. Apparently. pressing F5 on some of them after voting, then confirming form resubmission, causes your vote to be cast again. Or so the rumour goes, I wouldn't know *innocent face*

Increments stopped increasing for me at the moment.  I wonder if they blocked both of my IPs (unlikely) or the poll reached some sort of maximum limit.

One downside is that I may have given Busta an impressing that someone actually reads his site with all that traffic.

Edit: Numbers are going up again - Labour landslide it is.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Bear Hug

[Man of Kent]

Yeah, likewise. Unfortunately I've got several dozen of my closest friends round at the moment and we'd all like to say how we voted Tory in 2017 but we're now voting Labour, thus creating a large Tory > Labour swing as a result of Labour's pro-tenant agenda. 

[Bear Hug]

4 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Yeah, likewise. Unfortunately I've got several dozen of my closest friends round at the moment and we'd all like to say how we voted Tory in 2017 but we're now voting Labour, thus creating a large Tory > Labour swing as a result of Labour's pro-tenant agenda. 

I look forward to the academic portfolio landlord's interpretation of the useful insights this poll will provide. 

While I have no doubt that a letter-writing campaign from the Dr herself will follow, it will be even better if NLA get involved and spread the message on twitter.

[Man of Kent]

The amusing thing is that she genuinely thinks that politicians are going to be impressed by her crappy poll. Politicians are impressed by a series of opinion polls of statistically-representative samples of the population, conducted to British Polling Council standards. Not by asking your mates and anyone who happens to be passing to vote hundreds of times.

The other amusing thing, of course, is that she thinks that, even if this poll had any significance at all, any politician would take the message that they should be more pro-landlord. The idea that people are switching to Corbyn because of his landlord-friendliness is deranged: they'd all think they had to be more like him to tempt people back.