Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Wayward

Mortgate safety net disappearing

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, nickb1 said:

This point has nothing to do with the "homeowner" (ie mortgage holder). Kids, babies etc. are not homeowners right? Don't get me wrong, I want to see prices nosedive. But I don't want to see carnage too.

Prices won't 'nose dive' without distressed sellers...the blame for the necessary and inevitable carnage rest squarely at the door of those that have deliberately distorted this market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nickb1 said:

This point has nothing to do with the "homeowner" (ie mortgage holder). Kids, babies etc. are not homeowners right? Don't get me wrong, I want to see prices nosedive. But I don't want to see carnage too.

So someone selling their house and moving into rented potentially in a poorer area, because they over extended themselves, is actually CARNAGE FOR THE BABIES.

 

Glad you put me right on that one. I do so hope they get bailed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/12/2017 at 11:59 AM, nickb1 said:

This point has nothing to do with the "homeowner" (ie mortgage holder). Kids, babies etc. are not homeowners right? Don't get me wrong, I want to see prices nosedive. But I don't want to see carnage too.

The carnage is now - the 'suffering' and 'unfairness' is now, for many on the renter / unable to upsize side of the market... Gen Rent with kids too.

Until we have HPC, we won't know if there is any such 'carnage' 

There are millions of owners sat on fortunes of equity riches.

And others just need some mild reality.... it's not carnage for some to have to downsize to a flat (with chunk of mad-gainz).

Others have paid 10+ years of rent with no equity... had all the troubles of GenRent/BTLers/more HPI++++.

Although it's always Human Shields for owners from so many on HPC.  I want HPC but I don't want carnage.  HPC = carnage/suffering.   "Now get back into your rental box, pay your landlord, look after his property, and shut up and stop threatening the HPI."

Bit of mild reality - some sense returning to prices... described as carnage/suffering - as if some owners having to adjust l justifies to keep young so badly priced out in housing financialisation. 

Only homeowners matter eh; "They have kids/babies".    (Renters do too)

All the human shielding (for homeowners / and babies of homeowners)... on HPC forum.  How do you have stomach to read it (ohhhh by HPI+++/BTL+++ winning to extremes and no HPC) and new member deadasdodo also not wanting to see 'owner suffering' - (no matter what position of owner vs needs to sell... whatever super mad-gainz equity they have...  mortgage, even with mad-gainz worth fortune = their home.. if they can't pay mortgage). 

Whereas what happens to renter-saver if can't pay rent?  No benefits.  No understanding keep them in homes (landlords won't put up with rents not paid).

Quote

 

Using the fear tactic that you espouse (i.e. you too will get swept up in the flood) doesn't hold sway with me anymore.

. The same such applies to ensuring restoration of financial sanity to the world. IF I have to suffer some (more than already) to ensure a better world for my children and their children than I gladly do so. What are you prepared to do?!

 

 

Quote

 

Mortgage benefit cuts mean thousands could lose their homes

2012:  Despite retiring last year the 68-year-old is still saddled with a whopping £150,000 home loan.

....who got an interest-only mortgage 10 years ago after his divorce left him having to find the money for a new home.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/mortgage-benefit-cuts-mean-thousands-262973

image-4-for-your-life-money-17-11-10-gal

“I could just about cope before,” said the retired property sales agent. “You cut back on food, you juggle bills and I put on extra layers and sleep in a sleeping bag at night.

 

-----------------------

Finally he chose to sell it.  3 bed home to himself - playing the victim.  Not my fault his marriage didn't work out (have to work hard to keep my own relationships smooth on GenRent HPI+++/BTL++++ priced out side of things) and he thought he deserved big IO 3 bed home after divorce.... aged 58.

12 Sep 2002: £128,500

08 Aug 2014: £220,000

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=46309241&sale=29265225&country=england

12634_100767004293_IMG_05_0000_max_656x4

12634_100767004293_IMG_01_0000_max_656x4

2012 "Saddled with £150,000 mortgage "- more than he bought it for !!

 

 

Was half-thinking of posting up the 2012 story of woman who claims she can't afford to eat, claiming to have wrapped up last year's Christmas presents to give to her kids (bullsh1t - and you can get a few interesting toys for 2-4 year olds for <£10)...... her 2005 purchase of nice home.   It's not her right.  She outbid others.  Adults/responsiblity.  And I found the house and I would imagine it's sympathy/QE/HPI+++++ since 2012.... as it had from 2005-2012... and no rent paid out for her (equity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2017 at 7:35 PM, Wayward said:

Hope not...or if you do drop out of here keep on campaigning and agitating against HPI injustice. raising awareness, lobbying the powerful...The distortion of the housing market in the UK over recent decades will go down in history together with the enclosure movement as a grotesque and evil deliberate transfer of wealth. Dont give up shouting to the top.

@Wayward - thanks Wayward. 

Merry Christmas to you.

Merry Christmas to all HPCers who know it / suffer consequences of housing financialisation / BTL idiocy and selfishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Venger said:

The carnage is now - the 'suffering' and 'unfairness' is now, for many on the renter / unable to upsize side of the market... Gen Rent with kids too.

Until we have HPC, we won't know if there is any such 'carnage' 

There are millions of owners sat on fortunes of equity riches.

And others just need some mild reality.... it's not carnage for some to have to downsize to a flat (with chunk of mad-gainz).

Others have paid 10+ years of rent with no equity... had all the troubles of GenRent/BTLers/more HPI++++.

Although it's always Human Shields for owners from so many on HPC.  I want HPC but I don't want carnage.  HPC = carnage/suffering.   "Now get back into your rental box, pay your landlord, look after his property, and shut up and stop threatening the HPI."

Bit of mild reality - some sense returning to prices... described as carnage/suffering - as if some owners having to adjust l justifies to keep young so badly priced out in housing financialisation. 

Only homeowners matter eh; "They have kids/babies".    (Renters do too)

All the human shielding (for homeowners / and babies of homeowners)... on HPC forum.  How do you have stomach to read it (ohhhh by HPI+++/BTL+++ winning to extremes and no HPC) and new member deadasdodo also not wanting to see 'owner suffering' - (no matter what position of owner vs needs to sell... whatever super mad-gainz equity they have...  mortgage, even with mad-gainz worth fortune = their home.. if they can't pay mortgage). 

Whereas what happens to renter-saver if can't pay rent?  No benefits.  No understanding keep them in homes (landlords won't put up with rents not paid).

 

 

Was half-thinking of posting up the 2012 story of woman who claims she can't afford to eat, claiming to have wrapped up last year's Christmas presents to give to her kids (bullsh1t - and you can get a few interesting toys for 2-4 year olds for <£10)...... her 2005 purchase of nice home.   It's not her right.  She outbid others.  Adults/responsiblity.  And I found the house and I would imagine it's sympathy/QE/HPI+++++ since 2012.... as it had from 2005-2012... and no rent paid out for her (equity).

you don't understand Venger - it's CARNAGE FOR THE BABIES. They deserve their bailouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sympathy whatsoever for people who didn't take out insurance against job / income loss. When I bought my house, things were a little tight financially, but I bought a house priced lower than I could have actually got finance for, and made sure I paid for insurance for a couple of years until I had saved enough to protect me for a while in the event of job loss. Those products are still available, but it seems people just expect sympathy and bailouts now. F**k 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dpg50000 said:

No sympathy whatsoever for people who didn't take out insurance against job / income loss. When I bought my house, things were a little tight financially, but I bought a house priced lower than I could have actually got finance for, and made sure I paid for insurance for a couple of years until I had saved enough to protect me for a while in the event of job loss. Those products are still available, but it seems people just expect sympathy and bailouts now. F**k 'em.

Tbh I think banks should make this a condition of taking out a mortgage. I don't know why more people don't take it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, houseface2000 said:

Tbh I think banks should make this a condition of taking out a mortgage. I don't know why more people don't take it out!

I wonder how a bank would react if you asked for PPI...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/12/2017 at 8:24 AM, Venger said:

the human shielding (for homeowners / and babies of homeowners)... on HPC forum.  How do you have stomach to read it (ohhhh by HPI+++/BTL+++ winning to extremes and no HPC) and new member deadasdodo also not wanting to see 'owner suffering' - (no matter what position of owner vs needs to sell... whatever super mad-gainz equity they have...  mortgage, even with mad-gainz worth fortune = their home.. if they can't pay mortgage). 

Venger, politely can I ask how you'd structure the benefit system for housing support - for tenants and homeowners - and also your line on mortgage or rent forbearance? 

One reason why this thread has struck a chord with me is my wife lost her job earlier in the year. We can just about get by on my wage without drastic cutbacks, but there was a bit of 'drip drip' into our savings - unexpected car repairs and that kind of thing. Made me think about when we'd pull the rip chord so to speak and flog the house. Would I keep holding hope that things would turn around, even when the bank was threatening to repossess?

In the event she recently found another job and the net result was we spent rather than saved for a few months. Point of saying this is not to seek sympathy - our position is fortunate and owes as much to luck as it does to our judgement - but to give context to why I've been thinking about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deadasadodo said:

Venger, politely can I ask how you'd structure the benefit system for housing support - for tenants and homeowners - and also your line on mortgage or rent forbearance? 

One reason why this thread has struck a chord with me is my wife lost her job earlier in the year. We can just about get by on my wage without drastic cutbacks, but there was a bit of 'drip drip' into our savings - unexpected car repairs and that kind of thing. Made me think about when we'd pull the rip chord so to speak and flog the house. Would I keep holding hope that things would turn around, even when the bank was threatening to repossess?

In the event she recently found another job and the net result was we spent rather than saved for a few months. Point of saying this is not to seek sympathy - our position is fortunate and owes as much to luck as it does to our judgement - but to give context to why I've been thinking about this.

Id have an upper limit on housing equity. There's a cap on cash savings. So a cap of 150K seems fair.

There should be no direct mortgage support, rather banks should be encourage to park the repayments for 2 years.

The mortgage contract is between the bank and the mortgagee, not the tax payer.

Remember the reason why you had a hiccup is due to the high prices of housing, propped up by a dumb system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spyguy said:

Id have an upper limit on housing equity. There's a cap on cash savings. So a cap of 150K seems fair.

There should be no direct mortgage support, rather banks should be encourage to park the repayments for 2 years.

The mortgage contract is between the bank and the mortgagee, not the tax payer.

Remember the reason why you had a hiccup is due to the high prices of housing, propped up by a dumb system.

SMI is going to be a charge against any equity at some point in future, iirc.

What was homeowner bailout  in early 1990s? 

I remember one person tell their blame-bank plight story, having bought-near-peak (with a spreadsheet that it would be worth £1m in future joyness - turning into disappointment - apparently banks to blame for choice to buy near peak for having suits and plush offices), got repossessed / possession by lender (presumably due to default/not enough savings reserve).

It's his mortgage.  "Your path is yours to walk, and yours alone."   Everyone's situation is different.  Wouldn't many of us like to own a house in a nice area.   I can't afford to do so (well maybe I could with huge higher-risk mortgage, that some choose to take in outbidding other would-be owners/upsizers and renters).

I won't feel bad as some sobby-story about change-of-circumstance (for a recentish buyer), with income drop from partner putting strain on their position, eating into their savings.  That mortgage is theirs, when they took it on, choosing to buy/own vs 'how great it is to be a renter (they say) for state pays it all".   Their circumstances are not my family's responsibility as priced-out renter.  HPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Venger said:

SMI is going to be a charge against any equity at some point in future, iirc.

What was homeowner bailout  in early 1990s? 

I remember one person tell their blame-bank plight story, having bought-near-peak (with a spreadsheet that it would be worth £1m in future joyness - turning into disappointment - apparently banks to blame for choice to buy near peak for having suits and plush offices), got repossessed / possession by lender (presumably due to default/not enough savings reserve).

It's his mortgage.  "Your path is yours to walk, and yours alone."   Everyone's situation is different.  Wouldn't many of us like to own a house in a nice area.   I can't afford to do so (well maybe I could with huge higher-risk mortgage, that some choose to take in outbidding other would-be owners/upsizers and renters).

I won't feel bad as some sobby-story about change-of-circumstance (for a recentish buyer), with income drop from partner putting strain on their position, eating into their savings.  That mortgage is theirs, when they took it on, choosing to buy/own vs 'how great it is to be a renter (they say) for state pays it all".   Their circumstances are not my family's responsibility as priced-out renter.  HPC.

Very concise for you Venger. And spot on.

 

Happy Christmas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, any benefit should result in a charge on the property.  Make that charge superior to the bank's and maybe the bank would be more forgiving.  Also, yes, limit the overall benefit to catch those hopeless cases.

Edited by Fence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fence said:

Yes, any benefit should result in a charge on the property.  Make that charge superior to the bank's and maybe the bank would be more forgiving.  Also, yes, limit the overall benefit to catch those hopeless cases.

(Im sure there was a strike-out font option )
BOLD-UNDERLINE is should be - 'maybe the bank will think twice about how much they lend'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, deadasadodo said:

Venger, politely can I ask how you'd structure the benefit system for housing support - for tenants and homeowners - and also your line on mortgage or rent forbearance? 

One reason why this thread has struck a chord with me is my wife lost her job earlier in the year. We can just about get by on my wage without drastic cutbacks, but there was a bit of 'drip drip' into our savings - unexpected car repairs and that kind of thing. Made me think about when we'd pull the rip chord so to speak and flog the house. Would I keep holding hope that things would turn around, even when the bank was threatening to repossess?

In the event she recently found another job and the net result was we spent rather than saved for a few months. Point of saying this is not to seek sympathy - our position is fortunate and owes as much to luck as it does to our judgement - but to give context to why I've been thinking about this.

Housing equity of home owner and savings of renters should  be treated the same. Once you sign with tax payer to prop the mortgage contract alive, the contract should change to share the profit as well at the end of term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all. So views are that any support should either be a loan secured against the house, or on the proviso that the state comes in as a partner to share in any future HPI. 

11 hours ago, spyguy said:

BOLD-UNDERLINE is should be - 'maybe the bank will think twice about how much they lend'

Yes it would, it would also encourage the banks to step in before things got too out of hand for fear their security would be eroded to nothing. 

18 hours ago, Venger said:

I won't feel bad as some sobby-story about change-of-circumstance (for a recentish buyer), with income drop from partner putting strain on their position, eating into their savings.

Like I said, giving our background this year for context - our position is lucky and I've always been quite debt adverse/ savings focused. My mind likes to jump to worst case scenarios and project the current situation into the far flung future, hence I started thinking about how bad our finances would need to get before we pulled the little one of nursery, flogged the car, flogged the house, etc, etc.

Anyway happy Christmas all, particularly if you're also hiding from the dreaded duo of the Strictly and Call the Midwife Xmas specials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, deadasadodo said:

Thanks all. So views are that any support should either be a loan secured against the house, or on the proviso that the state comes in as a partner to share in any future HPI. 

Yes it would, it would also encourage the banks to step in before things got too out of hand for fear their security would be eroded to nothing. 

Like I said, giving our background this year for context - our position is lucky and I've always been quite debt adverse/ savings focused. My mind likes to jump to worst case scenarios and project the current situation into the far flung future, hence I started thinking about how bad our finances would need to get before we pulled the little one of nursery, flogged the car, flogged the house, etc, etc.

Anyway happy Christmas all, particularly if you're also hiding from the dreaded duo of the Strictly and Call the Midwife Xmas specials. 

Nah. Netflix binge of Punisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IO will not be the next PPI. 

Every mortgage sold for circa 15 years (iirc) has had a key facts illustration as part of the sale. 

It's printed for every customer in black and white in overly simple terms and graphs. 

There is no way in which a person could reasonably argue they didn't know what they were signing up for. 

Not to say the powers that be wont come up with some mental bail out plan. I hope not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ccc said:

IO will not be the next PPI. 

Every mortgage sold for circa 15 years (iirc) has had a key facts illustration as part of the sale. 

It's printed for every customer in black and white in overly simple terms and graphs. 

There is no way in which a person could reasonably argue they didn't know what they were signing up for. 

Not to say the powers that be wont come up with some mental bail out plan. I hope not. 

From beary:

TSB explain interest only.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, deadasadodo said:

Like I said, giving our background this year for context - our position is lucky and I've always been quite debt adverse/ savings focused. My mind likes to jump to worst case scenarios and project the current situation into the far flung future, hence I started thinking about how bad our finances would need to get before we pulled the little one of nursery, flogged the car, flogged the house, etc, etc.

Anyway happy Christmas all, particularly if you're also hiding from the dreaded duo of the Strictly and Call the Midwife Xmas specials. 

Thinking and constantly projecting it, for your situation as a recent homeowner, on HPC housing economy forum.

It's the same for each and every one of us - we have to think and weigh up risks, and our positions and finances in life, and take actions for what we think is best course - durrrr.    Risks exist.

And as buytoleech has also explained, even outright owners have to weigh up value of their home in a market economy (price it becomes worth selling at to them).

The more you pay for a house (with bigger mortgage) the more risk one takes on.   You're the one who began claiming that renters get the better deal from the State if their income drops for help with their rent.  Not so for those with any hard-earned savings with hope to buy, with house prices as they are.  You chose to buy in recent times.

Everyone's situation different to certainly of employment / good incomes.   Maybe consider that before you buy house in 2015/16/17 - instead of playing it up how you could be a 'victim in the future as a homeowner' on HPC forum.

I refuse to think of the market as in "but what about deadasadodo" as the homeowner and all his human shielding it for himself on HPC forum" if xyz-happens - which is seemingly how you want to project it.  You and other homeowners. 

Think not what the you can do for the country, think about the benefits the homeowners deserve for their own choices, and priority-one deadasadodo; he may have to sell car, pull 'little one out of nursery' (bless - if partner not working then more time anyway).... and forbid the horror may have to sell home and become a renter/downsize.  IT'S ALL ON YOU.  Why the human shielding the obvious, promoting yourself to the homeowner who matters  most if your circumstances/income drops.

The other exposure you have as owner is to more HPI+++++++.   Not paying rent.  Security of tenure.  Paying down mortgage under historically lower rates/    It's been years of 'Victim Homeowners Not Knowing Enough' including through 6+ years as London house prices soared/doubled.   

I'm exposed to gnawing uncertainty of having to move again (S21 - two months) from LL side, and continuing to be RentForeverLoser as many homeowners (outright/equity rich/BTLers) see my position, and possible no HPC.

Got my own family situation to look out for.  We can't own in school catchment we want to be in.  We also have to think about what happens in income drop.  What cars we drive.  We don't own a house because others pay far higher prices than we can/want to pay, with their own market choice to do so, all on them (and for years proven great vs renting in many areas).

I get the positioning because read it so many times on HPC.  "You're born a victim."   "You live life a victim."  (Especially if you're a homeowner - even outright owner).  

Because "no one has perfect knowledge about each action they take and the future" (ignoring fact some risks greater than others and lot of history to read/people to get advice from, and some things more likely to happen than not in risk profile) - "you're brainwashed/programmed victim of a conspiracy" and other people should stand ready to bail out if choices go bad.  Especially for homeowners.  People want homes for their families therefore doesn't matter what price you pay (victims/incapable on owner side).

"No one really has any input into their own life choices" - all manipulated/programmed victims (with just a few 'superior' elite individuals who 'should be in charge of everyone else' / the great conspiracy uncoverers - statues built in their honour) 

And you "die a victim".  (Apart from perfumed superiors who know so much more than lessors- but so many of those perfumed ones ... seems to me there's a lot of seeing others as lessors/incapable and themselves as superior).

Edited by Venger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Venger said:

IT'S ALL ON YOU

Except it's not is it? We live in a welfare state, which is what this thread is about. Currently there's some support from the state should we lose our jobs or get ill, which helps mitigate some of the financial and personal risks we take in life. People have different views on who should get what. 

Sorry you don't like me telling stories. Personally I think our stories provide context for our views and concerns, and in a policy context sobby stories well told have a lot of power. But I'll hold back on them when I reply to you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, deadasadodo said:

We live in a welfare state, which is what this thread is about.

This thread is actually about changes to Support for Mortgage Interest. I'm sure that what has just temporarily slipped your mind is that the thread title appears to be the BBC personal finance reporter summarising special pleading by a bank lobby group. Context matters.

The context is particularly important here because whilst it is reasonable for people to plan on the basis that the welfare state tomorrow will be roughly the same as the welfare state today SMI was in fact subject to significant temporary changes in 2009.

Quote

The Labour Government made a number of changes to the SMI scheme from January 2009, as part of a wider package of measures to help people affected by the economic downturn. The “waiting period” for SMI was reduced to 13 weeks; the loan cap increased to £200,000 for new working age claims; and the “standard rate” of interest was frozen at 6.08%. Receipt of SMI was also limited to two years for JSA claimants, although this is not the case for Universal Credit.


The changes were expected to be temporary, but remained in place, with the exception of the rate freeze, throughout the Labour and Coalition Governments. In its June 2010 Budget, the Coalition Government announced that the standard rate would be based on the average mortgage rate published by the Bank of England. From 1 October 2010 the standard rate fell to 3.63% and remained at that level until July 2015, when it fell to 3.12%.

Source:  House of Common Library, Briefing Paper Number 06618, 3 May 2016, Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) scheme

You might want to have a debate about the merits of the welfare state, but that would be tangential here. Whilst the significance of the changes to SMI is up for debate on this thread, it won't do to just accept the nonsense PR line that is being put out by the shills at UK Finance.

When households and their lenders were in big trouble in 2009 the state made SMI much more generous. As to the idea that it's some safety net against changes nobody could predict - half the recipients are on Pension Credits and equivalents. Did these people not think they were going to get old? Presumably this is one reason why the system has been reformed; it was no longer acting as a safety net it was just a bonkers system where you paid over the odds for people to live in houses servicing interest-only mortgages until death or infirmity forced the issue. The new system seems very fair for these old duffers; they still get to stay in their homes but they're eating the equity, though presumably on relatively generous terms compared to the terms they'd get with an equity release product from a private provider.

UK Finance are lobbying against this because even though the amounts are trivial it represents a transfer of risks from the state to the lenders. One of the most troubling aspects of the financial crisis endgame in the UK was that having seen a decade of the privatisation of gains we then saw the socialisation of the losses. The bank lobby group who've got some BBC personal finance muppet reporter to run their PR want things to stay that way, hence nonsense about  safety nets disappearing when a very generous temporary change to SMI is replaced with a better alternative.

Edited by Beary McBearface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

This thread is actually about changes to Support for Mortgage Interest.......

Wow, bravo.  A fair bit of effort there and the context stuff is so absent these days but a real eye opener if you invest the time on the due diligence.  I stopped listening to the media, especially the BBC, after doing this a while.  Fantastic post.  Thanks.

Edited by Fence

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.

  • 241 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.