Northern Rock is accused of selling off 1,100 repossessed homes at bargain prices

Gorgeous_George

You cannot have it both ways.

Either:

A. Houses are over-priced and the 'investor(s) has paid a fairer price.

or

B. Repossessed houses should stay on the market until they sell at an unrealistic price.

Just another cheap slant at the Government from the Tory press.

GG

GDB2222

carolt wrote: »

Actually, that Daily Mail article doesn't call him names - it was the BBC thing Brit quoted that did.

And would you call anyone who listens to the BBC 'a mob'?

I think you are the one trying to silence rational criticism of a business 'strategy' that should be - and as far as I know is - illegal - by ripping off banks subsidized by taxpayers to get mortgages for more than the true sold price, we are all being sold short; just so the said Mr Ahuja and a select group of 'investors' can make yet more money at our expense.

Well, that bit about getting an 85% mortgage on the original valuation figure is potentially fraudulent.

However, NR giving a 30% discount off some notional probably inflated figure is perfectly reasonable. If they stick their 1000 forced-sale properties onto the market at once, that will have a significant effect on prices, at least in the local areas or at the auctions they choose to use.

The one problem that NR may have is in pursuing the original borrowers unless they can show that they have achieved a fair price for their properties. Possibly, NR have given up on pursuing these particular borrowers - maybe they have gone bankrupt already. Who knows? There is nothing obviously wrong with what NR are doing, ie selling off a job lot of properties at a large discount. And there is nothing wrong with a purchaser selling them on at a reduced discount. I suspect that Ahuja is being over-optimistic in his marketing or has been misquoted.

edgex

This is also over on the HPC forums:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=97297

Conclusion:

at the very least its dodgy
realistically, it could well be fraudulent

SGE1

brit1234 wrote: »

Sorry but I don't normally read the Daily Mail. I'm more of The Economist, Times and Independant. However if you type in house prices in google and then click on the news tab you have access to many more sources and that is where I found this one.

If it is good enough for an economic expert to pick it out as his first story on a BBC paper review I'm sure it is good enough for here. As for the names they were the names used by the TV reviewers which I agree with.

You may slate the readership of the daily mail howevre the paper has highlighted a clear mis justice.

I was actually referring to you, having called him names.

Parasite?
Leech?
Vulture?
All under a photo of the man?

Come on...

brit1234

SGE1 wrote: »

I was actually referring to you, having called him names.

Parasite?
Leech?
Vulture?
All under a photo of the man?

Come on...

All names quoted in the media today which I agree with. If you go back to the original post you will see the use of a question mark and also added the word smart.

So I was conveying is he a vulture or is he smart? You decide, this is about discussing the issuses anyway.

neverdespairgirl

SGE1 wrote: »

Seriously though, posting up a picture of a man and calling him names, it may sooth your anger, but it's a bit middle-ages isn't it.

No, not really. The printing press hadn't been invented in the Middle Ages, photography didn't exist, almost no-one could read or write, and portrait painting was not common either. We don't even know what a lot of medieval Kings and Queens looked like.

So, nothing to do with the Middle Ages, really.

Apart from the HOUSE PRICE CRASH after the Black Death epidemic started in 1349.

chopperharris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

No, not really. The printing press hadn't been invented in the Middle Ages, photography didn't exist, almost no-one could read or write, and portrait painting was not common either. We don't even know what a lot of medieval Kings and Queens looked like.

So, nothing to do with the Middle Ages, really.And pictures of the "wanted man"

Apart from the HOUSE PRICE CRASH after the Black Death epidemic started in 1349.

actually i think you will find the printing press was invented several times before the dark ages ,and long before even guttenburg is creditted.Technically there was printed newspapers during times of the pharoahs on clay tabs , even with commodity prices , but you can also class them as accounts and interdepartmental memos.China also had the printing press used for a form of news that guttenberg most likely knew about and copied.

vivatifosi

Chopper, are you Stephen Fry in real life, or perhaps one of the QI elves?

chopperharris

brit1234 wrote: »

The fact is the former owners are plunged into ever greater debt to the profit of a corrupt investor. Today Ajay Aluga got called a Vulture, Leech and a Parasite on various BBC programs today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fzb7w/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_07_12_2008/

9:40 minutes in

It would be better that the properties were sold at Auction, that way they could pay the tax payer as well as get a better deal for the repossessed.

If you look at his website he advises his customers ditch private renters and use housing association tennants instead as the rents are higher. Yes he wants more tax payers money.

I agree they should be sold on open auctions , but it is a auction of sorts already , its called a private tender ie highest offer available NOW.But you run the risk of a very long time before you get it sold on the open auction.Time costs money , the lenders got loaned the money to lend to the defaulters , and they have to repay their side asap.

As I said better to have 60 percent of something , than nothing , the more the lenders reduce their loans the less it costs them in extra interest.The more they reduce the debt , the sooner they recapitalise.

So what if he advises investors to make more money , thats "good" business.Anyone that advises you to make less money , you simply wouldnt listen to very long would you?

Just how is it taking more tax payers money in renting to housing asociations?If they dont have stock to put people in them , then what , put them on the street?

Ironically the ones that would benefit in renting to ha's are those that couldnt pay their mortgage in the first place.Where else are they going to stay?

edit-Missed the top bit.The former owners you mention , are whom exactly , the lenders own the house until its paid for ."Your home is at risk should you not keep up the repayments".FGS how much simpler can the warning get?

chopperharris

vivatifosi wrote: »

Chopper, are you Stephen Fry in real life, or perhaps one of the QI elves?

I usually tell them , in a very "points of view letter" , you got it wrong.Which is more often than you would think.