Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Prude

Are 100% Mortgages Available?

Recommended Posts

Been talking to a young girl this morning at work who is getting married next year.

Story is..

Her and her partner were persuaded 6 months ago by their family and friends to by a house as they needed to get on the ladder while they still could. To do it they rushed in and bought a small terraced in Tameside for £86k. Their lender is the Northern Rock and as they had no deposit to speak of, they applied for a 100% mortgage. They were told that they could be lent 85% at the variable rate but that to make up the 15% they would have to take out a secured loan at ?% (she wasn't sure of the exact percentage but she said its alot higher).

Unbelievably they went for this deal as she told me that they found it impossible to get a full 100% mortgage.

Wasn't aware of this kind of thing before today but I know that as a result they are already maxed out with payments. She says that mortgage, the loan, the insurance and utility bills take all her wages. To live they use his and he earns less than her!

So is it common practise now to make up 100% loans in this way? I felt really sorry for this girl particularly knowing what is generally being forecast here. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this type of story from last time around. ALL market rise and fall. People just forget! These are to type of buyer that will get really seriously hurt. All on the back of rubbish, panicy advise. :angry:

Very Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been talking to a young girl this morning at work who is getting married next year.

Story is..

Her and her partner were persuaded 6 months ago by their family and friends to by a house as they needed to get on the ladder while they still could. To do it they rushed in and bought a small terraced in Tameside for £86k. Their lender is the Northern Rock and as they had no deposit to speak of, they applied for a 100% mortgage. They were told that they could be lent 85% at the variable rate but that to make up the 15% they would have to take out a secured loan at ?% (she wasn't sure of the exact percentage but she said its alot higher).

Unbelievably they went for this deal as she told me that they found it impossible to get a full 100% mortgage.

Wasn't aware of this kind of thing before today but I know that as a result they are already maxed out with payments. She says that mortgage, the loan, the insurance and utility bills take all her wages. To live they use his and he earns less than her!

So is it common practise now to make up 100% loans in this way? I felt really sorry for this girl particularly knowing what is generally being forecast here. :(

I think this is more a Northern Rock thing - they offer up to 125% in this way..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a few people who took out loans to create a deposit. One of my colleges did it with an overdraft, taken out once the martgage was approved by the lender, so it wasn't taken into account when the amount loaned was calculated. He has since transfered this to a 0% credit card and is shifting it around when each 0% period expires.

I have heard many stories of BTLers using their credit cards to supply deposits and then shifting them around the 0% deals.

What annoys me about this is not those that use these 0% deals but the banks that are now saying that they are loosing so much money through them that they plan to bring back the annual fee for credit cards. What with that and the new threat of having to pay for a charge for my current account because they are now not allowed to charge so much in penalties, it seems I am going to be paying for the bad money management of others.

I haven't seen this so far, what with the rumours I wonder how long it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is common in the US and is rising in popularity in the UK with lenders.

Essentially the majority of the mortgage is as normal and the rest is more of a higher rate loan, which is usually subject to IR fluctuations.

I think its first or second stop on the road to maddness personally and will cripple people if rates rise as its already starting to do in the US.

IMHO - if people don't have the income/discipline to save for a deposit (5% or even 10% of their 86K property is not a lot!) they don't have the income/discipline to buy or maintain a house...

- Pye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been talking to a young girl this morning at work who is getting married next year.

Story is..

Her and her partner were persuaded 6 months ago by their family and friends to by a house as they needed to get on the ladder while they still could. To do it they rushed in and bought a small terraced in Tameside for £86k. Their lender is the Northern Rock and as they had no deposit to speak of, they applied for a 100% mortgage. They were told that they could be lent 85% at the variable rate but that to make up the 15% they would have to take out a secured loan at ?% (she wasn't sure of the exact percentage but she said its alot higher).

Unbelievably they went for this deal as she told me that they found it impossible to get a full 100% mortgage.

Wasn't aware of this kind of thing before today but I know that as a result they are already maxed out with payments. She says that mortgage, the loan, the insurance and utility bills take all her wages. To live they use his and he earns less than her!

So is it common practise now to make up 100% loans in this way? I felt really sorry for this girl particularly knowing what is generally being forecast here. :(

Did they have bad credit? Usually they loan 90% and then you take out an unsecured loan at the same interest rate at the mortgage.

That's really stupid of them getting it at the variable rate instead of fixed. Northern Rock are just getting ready to raise their rate.

Edited by Wickedkitten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they have bad credit? Usually they loan 90% and then you take out an unsecured loan at the same interest rate at the mortgage.

That's really stupid of them getting it at the variable rate instead of fixed. Northern Rock are just getting ready to raise their rate.

Didn't like to ask about their credit history but what I'm really interested in is whether this has now become common practice. An earlier reply suggested it was just a Northern Rock thing.

I can understand why they've done it - they're being told that they don't have time to save a deposit (they'd only just got engaged) and to jump on before the train leaves the station. I'm sure that given the money that they are now spending on interest that they could have saved up a deposit. The point is that they, and their relatives on both sides, believe the hype and are giving what they believe to be sound advise.

All I could say was that I hoped things turned out well for them - she really seemed an innocent young thing looking forward to being married and life beyond that. Of course what I was really thinking and what I am hoping for is going to be disasterous for them.

I believe a crash is for the wider good but I still felt sh!t though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the sort of deal I don't get. There are two of them on presumably at least £16K a year (as you can earn that doing just about anything), so they are borrowing less than 3.5 times. I don't mean to be awful, but given they are so stretched on that amount of money, what are they doing buying a house - insurance on loans (which is what I presume you mean) tends to be a waste of time and unless there's suddenly mass unemployment at all levels, they can walk into another job paying those wages tomorrow (and most insurance won't kick in straight off anyway).

By anyone's calculations their mortgage and insurance can't be more than about £700 a month, even allowing for high interest rates than the market usually offers. I think someone's being economical about either their debts or their income - buying a home should mean sacrifices, I get the impression they are shouldering either other debt or they simply need to realise homes ain't free (and never were).

at 7.49% on a repayment basis that mortgage is £635. Add in £100 council tax and say £30 insurance a month and say £100 bills, and you still only get to 870 a month. Given £2K a month coming in, what are they playing at if they have no other debts. If they have other debts, well duhhhh.....

Edited by Rachman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the sort of deal I don't get. There are two of them on presumably at least £16K a year (as you can earn that doing just about anything), so they are borrowing less than 3.5 times. I don't mean to be awful, but given they are so stretched on that amount of money, what are they doing buying a house - insurance on loans (which is what I presume you mean) tends to be a waste of time and unless there's suddenly mass unemployment at all levels, they can walk into another job paying those wages tomorrow (and most insurance won't kick in straight off anyway).

By anyone's calculations their mortgage and insurance can't be more than about £700 a month, even allowing for high interest rates than the market usually offers. I think someone's being economical about either their debts or their income - buying a home should mean sacrifices, I get the impression they are shouldering either other debt or they simply need to realise homes ain't free (and never were).

at 7.49% on a repayment basis that mortgage is £635. Add in £100 council tax and say £30 insurance a month and say £100 bills, and you still only get to 870 a month. Given £2K a month coming in, what are they playing at if they have no other debts. If they have other debts, well duhhhh.....

She works at a local College and does data admin work in the admissions and enrollment department. She works (35 hour week for £7.41 per hour according to the intranet). This equates to £13.5k pa. Not sure what he does. However there are many jobs that pay < £16K as this salary is £8.80 ph based on a typical week.

Look on here, Job centre plus website, to see how many jobs there are not paying anywhere near £8.80.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She works at a local College and does data admin work in the admissions and enrollment department. She works (35 hour week for £7.41 per hour according to the intranet). This equates to £13.5k pa. Not sure what he does. However there are many jobs that pay < £16K as this salary is £8.80 ph based on a typical week.

Look on here, Job centre plus website, to see how many jobs there are not paying anywhere near £8.80.

Overtime. Like the rest of us had to. She works less than a full 40 hour week. I don't mean this the wrong way, but it's a bit rich expecting to be able to afford to buy a house without putting yourself out at least a bit. Inputting data is not exactly pushing yourself is it [apologies to all data inputters obviously]. If he earns less than that, WTF are they playing at - where's their career progression and how can they expect to own a house [expects abuse from people saying they deserve a home without putting their neck out/joining the rat race]. Most of us earned more than that doing student jobs.

10 years ago I was clearing £350 a week for doing an absolute untrained monkey job - difference was I was happy to put the hours in as it paid my debts from university off. My cousin was paying labourers £100 a day on his Manchester sites, the money is there if you work at it.

Edited by Rachman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah with the Northern Rock mortgage you can borrow up to 125% of the value of the house. They'll lend a maximum of 95% for the secured mortgage, then the other 30% (up to a max of £30k) as an unsecured loan, but at the same rate as the mortgage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah with the Northern Rock mortgage you can borrow up to 125% of the value of the house. They'll lend a maximum of 95% for the secured mortgage, then the other 30% (up to a max of £30k) as an unsecured loan, but at the same rate as the mortgage.

Its called a Together loan if I remember rightly. You also get a credit card at a permanently low rate, 6% or something like that.

As Rachman said though, something about this whole tale smells very off.They are either about as sharp as buttons the pair of them, or in other debt they don't want to talk about.

Or they may just think you can have a combined income of less than 21k and have a purchased house and all that goes with it. In real terms, I'm not sure you could EVER have that on those kinds of take home pay. Not even back in the halcyon days many on here dream of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rachman said though, something about this whole tale smells very off.They are either about as sharp as buttons the pair of them, or in other debt they don't want to talk about.

You're telling me, the interest rate is likely to be 5.5% ish and therefore repayments of £527 a month given what I know now about the mortgage, plus according to its website, they need £30K of income to borrow that amount of money.

Put it this way, I can't believe that they can't get to £2K a month coming in between them, even in unskilled jobs. That puts this size of mortgage into perspective - TBH, I think they are not compromising their prior lifestyle and are still living as they used to before they bought a house (or are spending on the wedding).

It just does not add up.

Edited by Rachman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overtime. Like the rest of us had to. She works less than a full 40 hour week. I don't mean this the wrong way, but it's a bit rich expecting to be able to afford to buy a house without putting yourself out at least a bit. Inputting data is not exactly pushing yourself is it [apologies to all data inputters obviously]. If he earns less than that, WTF are they playing at - where's their career progression and how can they expect to own a house [expects abuse from people saying they deserve a home without putting their neck out/joining the rat race]. Most of us earned more than that doing student jobs.

10 years ago I was clearing £350 a week for doing an absolute untrained monkey job - difference was I was happy to put the hours in as it paid my debts from university off. My cousin was paying labourers £100 a day on his Manchester sites, the money is there if you work at it.

Try Average gross income in Lancashire as a source for the typical incomes in 2005. Notice that many boroughs in Lancashire have average household incomes of < £26k. This is the mid point meaning 50% are below this point!

It doesn't feel great to me that you are suggesting that 2 young people, both working full time, trying to get on in life, but having limited educational achievement should really question whether they can afford a house at all. The point I am making is they have afforded it, but only just. They are stretched from the outset largely thanks to this mortage/loan arrangement to get them onto the ladder as a panic measure.

Bragging how much you were earning as an undergraduate doing a crap job really has nothing to do with it. What we are considering here is the set of people who are <30years old, haven't been helped out by parents as they are from backgrounds with limited means and who have NOT been to uni. How large is this set? We could further divide this set into those living south of Watford and those not as this has a great deal to do with earning potential if you wish to explore this further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't feel great to me that you are suggesting that 2 young people, both working full time, trying to get on in life, but having limited educational achievement should really question whether they can afford a house at all. The point I am making is they have afforded it, but only just. They are stretched from the outset largely thanks to this mortage/loan arrangement to get them onto the ladder as a panic measure.

Bragging how much you were earning as an undergraduate doing a crap job really has nothing to do with it. What we are considering here is the set of people who are <30years old, haven't been helped out by parents as they are from backgrounds with limited means and who have NOT been to uni. How large is this set? We could further divide this set into those living south of Watford and those not as this has a great deal to do with earning potential if you wish to explore this further.

Oh come on, get a bit more real. For a start, I was pointing out that they are earning peanuts (as I was) - but I fixed it by doing 30 hours a week more. That was not a graduate job, it was monkey job before I started at Law School. Anf you cheated, the average income includes benefits and welfare payments, including pensioners [i would also suggest that there's an awful lot of cash in hand goes on in a lot of those poorest paying boroughs (I used to live there, so I am sure you know what I mean and no, I don't support the BNP!)] - take out the large numbers of doleites and the income levels rise. Plus they have two incomes, not one. Many of the houses with one income take the average down. They are not in that group.

You quote Lancashire. Interesting. It's where I am from. My own father is illeducated, yet was making £23K a year working for the council till he retired last year. My mother, the same, was making £25K with no formal educational achievements working for the council. Several of my good friends own factories up there, ALL of their staff make more than £15K a year if they do any overtime (and that includes the shop floor people who are genuinely barely literate). Most of my mates who are still up north are about 30 and a lot have no education, they are all doing far better than that, if you get your hands dirty up north, you make £100 a day minimum (as I said) working and grafting. I suggest that one or both of them acquires a skillset rather quickly.

Even earning £26K, by the time you have messed about with the allowances, then they are on about £1750 month and the total bills for the house are no more than £750 (assuming they are on normal interest rates) and £100 council tax and £100 for other bills). That gives them a grand a month spare to live. And this is assuming he makes £11K a year..... FFS, what is he doing that only earns £220 a week gross - he's buying a house, put the effort in man.

If they were renting, they would be paying about £400 a month at least to rent the house, plus the council tax and bills, so they are not really better off that way (in reality).

Edited by Rachman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah with the Northern Rock mortgage you can borrow up to 125% of the value of the house. They'll lend a maximum of 95% for the secured mortgage, then the other 30% (up to a max of £30k) as an unsecured loan, but at the same rate as the mortgage.

I remember seeing this when we were shopping around for a mortgage last year.

Seeing this reminded me that when we had our mortgage approved with Woolwich last year (didn't go through with it) we were given a cheque book . The account is called a reserve account. It's there so that as soon as you start paying off your mortgage you can start writing cheques to borrow more against your house. Madness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prude, Rachmans 100% on the line with this one. I work with factory owners, and some of the guys on the shop floor doing the most mind numbingly boring work are on over 15k a year. Those jobs are, no kidding, stuff you could train a monkey to do, so what this young couple we are all supposed to feel earnestly sorry for are playing at, God only knows.

Oh, and as for them having no debt, well, lets put it this way - my wife brokers Mortgages, and the amount of people she sees who swear blind they have no debt, and then practically run out the room when she states she has to do a credit check that shall reveal all (including any past, rejected, Mortgage applications) runs about a steady 10%

As for the male of these two, earning about £220 per week gross, I earned about that gross driving a Taxi cab part time 14 years ago. Thats the context I shall view this one in.

Something definately not right.

EDITED to say that yes ianbe, that is run off a single direct debit.

I remember seeing this when we were shopping around for a mortgage last year.

Seeing this reminded me that when we had our mortgage approved with Woolwich last year (didn't go through with it) we were given a cheque book . The account is called a reserve account. It's there so that as soon as you start paying off your mortgage you can start writing cheques to borrow more against your house. Madness!

As with all credit, its only madness if you use it wrongly.

Use it to buy shoes or a flash car you couldn't afford from your basic salary, your an idiot.

Use it to do finance something that shall tangibly increase the value of the property just before you sell and move up, your playing it cleverly.

Edited by billy-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prude, Rachmans 100% on the line with this one. I work with factory owners, and some of the guys on the shop floor doing the most mind numbingly boring work are on over 15k a year. Those jobs are, no kidding, stuff you could train a monkey to do, so what this young couple we are all supposed to feel earnestly sorry for are playing at, God only knows.

Shiftwork at Northern Foods paid £280 a basic week packing mince pies on the night shift in 1996 (I know because I still have the payslips).

Prude may be missing part of the picture on the finances here, because they just DON'T stack up. I have tried to run the numbers any other way, but I just don't see where their financial problem is. I also think that they need to learn some skills if they want to keep their house and actually get on in life, because for a start, he's not doing [sorry to be blunt] - how are they going to survive on minimum wage if they want kids - they won't. So he needs to get his finger out...... [meant nicely]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One company I deal with are looking for guys at the minute; £9.82 per hour as a basic day-shift, with a rise for night-shift and you can work every weekend if you want. They have more orders than people to fill them. Overtime is classed as time and a half.

You know what, they cant get people. That job (its hot work, standing next to a machine that forms industrial use plastic bags) might not be the most pleasant in the world, but its not badly paid IMHO for a position where you don't particularly have to think.

Factory boss reckons the big problem is having a factory on the fringe of a sink estate, and people prefer benefits to working. I don't necessarily agree with that, but looking at the facts I'm genuinely at a loss to see how benefits can compete with that sort of wage, no matter what scam your running?

Anyone clued up enough on the benefit system as to offer a plausable explanation??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, get a bit more real. For a start, I was pointing out that they are earning peanuts (as I was) - but I fixed it by doing 30 hours a week more. That was not a graduate job, it was monkey job before I started at Law School. Anf you cheated, the average income includes benefits and welfare payments, including pensioners [i would also suggest that there's an awful lot of cash in hand goes on in a lot of those poorest paying boroughs (I used to live there, so I am sure you know what I mean and no, I don't support the BNP!)] - take out the large numbers of doleites and the income levels rise. Plus they have two incomes, not one. Many of the houses with one income take the average down. They are not in that group.

You quote Lancashire. Interesting. It's where I am from. My own father is illeducated, yet was making £23K a year working for the council till he retired last year. My mother, the same, was making £25K with no formal educational achievements working for the council. Several of my good friends own factories up there, ALL of their staff make more than £15K a year if they do any overtime (and that includes the shop floor people who are genuinely barely literate). Most of my mates who are still up north are about 30 and a lot have no education, they are all doing far better than that, if you get your hands dirty up north, you make £100 a day minimum (as I said) working and grafting. I suggest that one or both of them acquires a skillset rather quickly.

Even earning £26K, by the time you have messed about with the allowances, then they are on about £1750 month and the total bills for the house are no more than £750 (assuming they are on normal interest rates) and £100 council tax and £100 for other bills). That gives them a grand a month spare to live. And this is assuming he makes £11K a year..... FFS, what is he doing that only earns £220 a week gross - he's buying a house, put the effort in man.

If they were renting, they would be paying about £400 a month at least to rent the house, plus the council tax and bills, so they are not really better off that way (in reality).

All this is a diversion - lets put aside the lazy, low paid good for nothing character assasination stuff. I am just reporting what I was told. The reason I started the thread was to hightlight the key points of this story.

1. They wouldn't have bought unless if the market hadn't been so hyped. They felt pressured.

2. If the market was behaving in a more rational fashion then no doubt they would have saved first.

3. To accomodate this irrational behaviour based on an irrational market the finance institution has offered them with a higher rate loan on top of the mortgage to make up the 100% deal. A practice I was not aware of - hence the thread.

4. If you had talked to this girl you would wish her no harm either but you would fear for her too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is a diversion - lets put aside the lazy, low paid good for nothing character assasination stuff. I am just reporting what I was told. The reason I started the thread was to hightlight the key points of this story.

1. They wouldn't have bought unless if the market hadn't been so hyped. They felt pressured.

2. If the market was behaving in a more rational fashion then no doubt they would have saved first.

3. To accomodate this irrational behaviour based on an irrational market the finance institution has offered them with a higher rate loan on top of the mortgage to make up the 100% deal. A practice I was not aware of - hence the thread.

4. If you had talked to this girl you would wish her no harm either but you would fear for her too.

Fair play fella, but you can see where we are coming from. My thoughts on those points FWIW.

1. If they felt that pressurized from talking to friends, family etc, then I fear for these two. If they are that easily swayed, then they are royally f*cked if they ever walk into a DFS, Phones4U or have a double glazing/cable tv salesman knock on there door. Good luck with the wedding, but I hope they both gain some maturity. Fast.

2. Markets behave as markets behave, be it the stock market, housing market, used car market or otherwise. It just is what it is. Dreaming it was different will not change it.

3. Point 3 is very much unsubstantiated. If it IS the Together product we're talking about here, then she is telling you a lie. The loan part of the deal is not secured, and it is at the same rate as the mortgage. Sorry, no bogeymen waiting to mug her in a cheerily lit office here I'm afraid, that ones down to them. One of the chief reasons for that product (as it was explained to me) was for the mid 20's professional who has other debt and can use the unsecured low rate to pay it off to a manageable level (from 15.9%APR to say 5.5% APR) and get on with there life. How this couple made the grade, well, anyone's guess. I still think she is being economical with the truth though.

4. Of course I would wish her no harm, and I probably would fear for her, but then again, she may well be learning a valuable life lesson here as well. Hell, always an upside if you choose to look for it.

Edited by billy-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is a diversion - lets put aside the lazy, low paid good for nothing character assasination stuff. I am just reporting what I was told. The reason I started the thread was to hightlight the key points of this story.

1. They wouldn't have bought unless if the market hadn't been so hyped. They felt pressured.

2. If the market was behaving in a more rational fashion then no doubt they would have saved first.

3. To accomodate this irrational behaviour based on an irrational market the finance institution has offered them with a higher rate loan on top of the mortgage to make up the 100% deal. A practice I was not aware of - hence the thread.

4. If you had talked to this girl you would wish her no harm either but you would fear for her too.

I don't want to see anyone who tries being done over, either by the system or by ruthless individuals.

However, what hype, they read the paper and they listened to relatives - they decided to buy at a lowish (in absolute terms) price. They have got a house where their mortgage interest payment is less than the likely rent is going to be. They have jobs where if they lose them they can walk into another one with very little drop (if at all!) in terms of income almost immediately. If property prices tank they won't have to sell as they can easily cover their costs as above and they can afford to ride out any crash because they level of exposure is so low (provided they keep working). They can be in the upside if the property prices rise (!).

The market is not exactly irrational, smaller cheaper houses are being bought by BTL people, that will continue to be the case as the yields are better - that will force prices up till yields drop off (interest rates will have an effect on this too) - their 'rent' is fixed - it's their interest payment.

Thay are adults, they take adult financial advice, they can easily take advice, they decided it was best to do this than not. We make our beds. They may win, they may lose.... que sera, sera.

I am sure she's a lovely girl and he's a hardworking yet struggling lad and it's love's young dream.

I still think they are telling porky pies (or you don't know their finances) about other debts though - cars, mobile phones, tatalogue debts, credit card debts and the like....... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to see anyone who tries being done over, either by the system or by ruthless individuals.

However, what hype, they read the paper and they listened to relatives - they decided to buy at a lowish (in absolute terms) price. They have got a house where their mortgage interest payment is less than the likely rent is going to be. They have jobs where if they lose them they can walk into another one with very little drop (if at all!) in terms of income almost immediately. If property prices tank they won't have to sell as they can easily cover their costs as above and they can afford to ride out any crash because they level of exposure is so low (provided they keep working). They can be in the upside if the property prices rise (!).

The market is not exactly irrational, smaller cheaper houses are being bought by BTL people, that will continue to be the case as the yields are better - that will force prices up till yields drop off (interest rates will have an effect on this too) - their 'rent' is fixed - it's their interest payment.

Thay are adults, they take adult financial advice, they can easily take advice, they decided it was best to do this than not. We make our beds. They may win, they may lose.... que sera, sera.

I am sure she's a lovely girl and he's a hardworking yet struggling lad and it's love's young dream.

I still think they are telling porky pies (or you don't know their finances) about other debts though - cars, mobile phones, tatalogue debts, credit card debts and the like....... :)

It maybe so that they have other debts and so on, I don't know. But clearly they were not really in a position to buy. The position has been engineered and the sale has been forced through because the driving force was fear (whether rational or irrational). The people around them read, they read, they see weekly VI stories (Daily express - house prices to double type stuff). I can understand why they are fearful - BTL investors buying up most property in their range etc.. I just find it rather depressing. She is not a bad person. She is not taking handouts from the state. She is attempting to stand on her own 2 feet but she will pay for her dream I fear.

When she's in trouble I will feel real sympathy. If the investors who have caused this mess get in trouble that will be a different matter.

Edited by Prude

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 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.