Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Omg
One in five 'couldn't afford food' if mortgage payments rose
One in seven home owners struggles to pay the mortgage and 20pc would not have enough for essentials such as food if their repayments rose by £100 a month.
Posted by mark @ 01:25 PM (5046 views)
18 thoughts on “Omg”
Add a comment
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
cynicalsoothsayer says:
No, they couldn’t afford the mortgage if repayments rose by £100 a month.
sibley's b'stard child says:
Fortunately renters are totally unaffected by such arbitrary increases.
hpwatcher says:
Fortunately renters are totally unaffected by such arbitrary increases.
not when landlords can’t pay their mortgages…someone will have to foot the bill.
mark wadsworth says:
HPW, wrong. The amount of rent that any home is worth is entirely independent of any costs the landlord has to pay, there is completely and utterly no relationship whatsoever, none, the landlord cannot pass on a penny of his costs, not the interest, not the tax, not the mortgage repayments, nothing*.
This is real life, and I defy you to find a single real life example of it ever happening. I used to be a BTL and I tell you how it works. Do you not understand?
* Except in the minor and limited case where the landlord decides to do up a flat nicely, because he knows that he can then charge a higher rent, so he works out what the extra rent will be and what the doing-up will cost. But he is still not really passing on the cost – if the carpet fitter rips him off and charges the landlord £10,000 instead of £1,000, then that does not push the rent up.
dill says:
Looks like it’s bricks and mortar for tea then, luv!
sibley's b'stard child says:
HPW as MW points out rents are determined by wages not by LLs.
In any event, I was being jocular in that i’ve yet to see a wailing piece on behalf of renters who regularly face annual rent hikes. On the contrary, LSL fluff pieces masquerading as news tend to have an vague air of ‘sweaty-palm rubbing’ glee about them.
dill says:
@6 sbc
Correct x2.
You’ll soon see some progress.
I have a mantra: Battles are lost, but Wars are not. However long it takes!
Brightonrentfodder says:
Sibley, yes totally agree there, as a private renter, at the end of the day, if you can’t afford the rent, then you have to move, and the landlord consequently has to find someone else. we just had to move out of Brighton because I think overall that the area has lost reality with what the average worker can actually afford. I believe the landlords are deluding themselves down here, and this recession will sooner or later
sought out those landlords who are being too greedy. As I was told by my previous landlord, it wasn’t he who was ramping up the rent every year, it was his managing agent, so likewise the agencies will have to take a hit in the end , IF this recession continues.
uncle tom says:
Rents are also determined by govt’s willingness to stump up HB..
..now here’s an idea:
Build a new town on the site of North Weald airfield (mostly used for mega boot fairs these days) It has easy access to the M11 and the central line underground.
Restrict the development for London overspill social housing (which was the primary remit for nearby Harlow, when that was first built)
Use private money to make the development happen, and set annual rents at £4k + £1k for each bedroom (low compared to market rate, but commercially viable, as the restriction to the development would depress the land value)
Repeat the exercise on sites to the south and west of London as well, that also have rail access to the centre.
Once construction has started, every new applicant for HB in London gets sent to North Weald or one of its clones.
Result: More homes built, no upfront costs to taxpayer, massive saving on HB, and London rents pushed down..
sneaker says:
Shouldn’t have borrowed so much money?
mark wadsworth says:
UT, sounds like a good plan, so it will never happen.
mark wadsworth says:
UT, out of interest, I checked where North Weald is, and your plan is a non-starter, for that land is a) in the Hallowed Green Belt and b) Near Somebody Else. Epping is the most NIMBY of all towns, they even had half a mile of tunnel built to shelter the precious dears from the M11 noise.
uncle tom says:
MW,
I know what you’re alluding to, but in this case I can’t see a practical or political impediment – other than the habit of successive governments to do everything at an ever slower pace..
uncle tom says:
MW
Epping is on the other side of the M11, and effectively isolated from the airfield.
North Weald airfield would count as previously developed land, so elegible within the green belt.
There could also be a trade-off, extending the Green belt toward Dunmow and Braintree..
Britishblue says:
MW at 11. A lot of hallowed green belt is now being opened for development. Take Cambridge for instance, huge swathes of green belt land all around Cambridge are being developed. (It is one of Cambridge Universities biggest revenue streams) Also around Reigate and Redhill in Surrey the same is happening. I only know this through a business interest where we were trying to acquire land.
On the affordable issue, a perfect storm is brewing in a way that has never happened before The early stages of the recession were softened for many mortgage holders ( as opposed to renters) as interest rates went down, but inflation of essentials like food, electric, fuel etc, soared whilst wages remained flat. Now in this second stage interest rates have only one way to go (whether it be by the banks or the Bank of England), so mortgage holders will be slow boiled like frogs. Firstly, the banks will widen the gap between borrowing and lending and then eventually the BOE rate will rise. If the government cleansing policy of capping social security rents and moving people to less expensive areas of the country works, this will further hasten this process.
mark wadsworth says:
UT, I’m not alluding to anything, I think it’s a great idea, but I know people in Epping, they go mental if a single brick is put in place within ten miles.
That said, i read somewhere that the best kind of town planning is not to expand it out in concentric circles or have satellite towns, but to have it more like a hand or star or maple leaf, .i.e. there is a normal highly urban centre centre and then five or six spokes coming off it, with a healthy dollop of green, farm or forest land in between the spokes, stretching inwards almost to the centre, a bit like Epping Forest, which goes as far in as nearly Stratford, give or take a mile.
That makes sense to me, and your North Weald plan fits in with that, it’s better extending the spokes than filling in the gaps between them.
uncle tom says:
MW,
Star theory works for me..
mark wadsworth says:
UT, it also fits in with the usual urban commuter rail layout, i.e. a few lines heading off in all directions into the countryside, with a village/centre round each station, only it makes more sense for the villages to join up into a more or less constant string with the stations close together (less track to maintain, quicker journeys) than have them spaced out, but from any given point, you’re never more than half a mile from some fields or forests or a river or something.