We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The time-bomb ticking under Britain's house prices
Comments
-
no as ever chucky is educating you, something which is quite easy as you're not too bright. maybe we can blame the rusks your mother gave you as a child...Graham_Devon wrote: »Surprisingly, you have decided not to give your thoughts.
So what we have learnt is that you agree incomes could be exaggerated, but do not want to be seen as agreeing that therefore the data could be flawed.
As ever, chucky doesn't want to state anything. So I'll offer you a rusk now, and leave you to it.
just because you read it somewhere in the Daily Mail it doesn't mean it's true. i don't know the data and until the data is there all you are doing is guessing.
if 50% of people lied about their income why are we having mortgage arrears of less than 1.5%... i'll leave that one with you to deflect and move onto something else0 -
if 50% of people lied about their income why are we having mortgage arrears of less than 1.5%... i'll leave that one with you to deflect and move onto something else
Im not going to deflect it.
I'm not saying people exaggerated their income to the absolute max of affordability and therefore will all be in arrears. So would be good if you didnt put words into my mouth and then state I will deflect the convo.
I'm just stating people could have exaggerated their income and therefore the statistics may not be quite true.
It's gone on rather longer than I expected though. The point was pretty simple.0 -
RenovationMan wrote: »And by the same token, they could not have.
I dare say that some people did and some people didnt, but the question remains; what on earth does all this have to do with the most important topic of the day:
How do you insulate a solid stone wall without causing damp!
:rotfl:
That's better !
Don't know the answer though.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I'm just stating people could have exaggerated their income and therefore the statistics may not be quite true.
And I'd say that the chances are that some people did exaggerate their income.
I admit I have no direct evidence of this, but there was a program back in 2004(?) where a documentary team went undercover to find out what was going on behind the doors of mortgage broker's offices. The results of which showed that it wasn't too difficult to get an "enhanced" mortgage on a fairly ordinary salary.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
And I'd say that the chances are that some people did exaggerate their income.
I admit I have no direct evidence of this, but there was a program back in 2004(?) where a documentary team went undercover to find out what was going on behind the doors of mortgage broker's offices. The results of which showed that it wasn't too difficult to get an "enhanced" mortgage on a fairly ordinary salary.
By last October the FSA had banned some 96 mortgage brokers. A few of whom were fined for inflating their own salaries to obtain BTL mortgages. One self certified his income as £65k whereas it was actually £11,700.
Regulation of mortgage brokers hasn't come soon enough........0 -
Mortgage fraud on a significant scale has been denied by some, when mentioned on forums such as this. As time has gone by, there has been a drip feed of mortgage brokers being "found out". If the FSA have banned 96 mortgage brokers, that is neither a massive nor small number. It does raise the question - if they have found 96 brokers "misbehaving", how many more are yet to be found, or will remain unfound ?30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0
-
Mortgage fraud on a significant scale has been denied by some, when mentioned on forums such as this. As time has gone by, there has been a drip feed of mortgage brokers being "found out". If the FSA have banned 96 mortgage brokers, that is neither a massive nor small number. It does raise the question - if they have found 96 brokers "misbehaving", how many more are yet to be found, or will remain unfound ?
There might be some who they find that didn't though.0 -
Nearly half of the mortgages granted between 2007-2010 were not income verified. That is a hard fact to ignore.
When we got a mortgage in 2007, we went to our bank.
Popped into the mortgage advisors office, gave them our details, filled in the form, answered the questions, they ran a credit check and we got an answer on the spot.
This is known as a Fast Track mortgage application.
They could see our account, see the payments in and out, see the way we managed our accounts. They did not ask for payslips, although we had them with us.
Technically, it was a non income verified mortgage..... But as our bank, they knew full well what our income was. I suspect most of the banks used similar processes.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
You were FTBs in 2007? My, you do have a lot to lose...HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »When we got a mortgage in 2007 - *snip*Long live the faces of t'wunty.0 -
twadge_face wrote: »You were FTBs in 2007?
Don't be an idiot.
We bought a second house in 2007 after paying off the first mortgage early.My, you do have a lot to lose...
Not really.
First house paid off and worth 400% of what we paid, second house mortgage now less than 1.5 times our income, and we've taken advantage of the lowest rates in history.
Worked out very nicely indeed.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards