58% of properties can be bought by "average income"

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They were specifically talking about reposessions, was on radio 5 on the way home from work about a couple of months back.

But we all know how theses things go.

People facing repo used rent back schemes, 90,000 were done last year. (that 90,000 does not mean they were all repos just total transactions)

All I can find is that 50,000 went through in 08 that was total so would be interesting to get some stats.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

But we all know how theses things go.

People facing repo used rent back schemes, 90,000 were done last year. (that 90,000 does not mean they were all repos just total transactions)

All I can find is that 50,000 went through in 08 that was total so would be interesting to get some stats.

I only heard it by some commentator on the radio as I said. Can't even remember who he was, but was something to do with the banking sector.

At reposession point, some get the chance to use a buy and rent back scheme at court. It's on an individual basis (spose depnding on whether the company wants the house), and he said this saved 90,000 repo's.

I can't offer any more than that.

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

So what conditions have really changed for home owners?

Mortgages are still freely available.

Without Government intervention, ie bank support both HBOS and RBS would have collapsed causing chaos in the UK lending markets.

This wouldn't have just applied to mortgage lending.

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Mortgages are still freely available.

Without Government intervention, ie bank support both HBOS and RBS would have collapsed causing chaos in the UK lending markets.

This wouldn't have just applied to mortgage lending.

But that was not done to support the housing market, more for the £XXX,XXX,XXX of deposits they hold and business accounts etc, etc ,etc.

So what has been done just for the housing market or have all these been done for the general economy?

The only think I can see is stamp duty so in reality even if property was booming at the time all these things would have still been done (with the exception of stamp duty)?

Or does anyone really think this as all been done to hold up the price of houses?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Or does anyone really think this as all been done to hold up the price of houses?

Absolutely no one has said that. I have even stated up above that it was indirect, and that it is pointless simply excluding it because it was not direct support.

Could argue till the cows come home on this one, but although it was not direct, it HAS had a huge impact, some of the impact being directly intended, such as "lend more".

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I only heard it by some commentator on the radio as I said. Can't even remember who he was, but was something to do with the banking sector.

At reposession point, some get the chance to use a buy and rent back scheme at court. It's on an individual basis (spose depnding on whether the company wants the house), and he said this saved 90,000 repo's.

I can't offer any more than that.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft1018.pdf

OFT seem to indicate by about summer 2008 there would have only ever been 53,000 done in total ever (not just a year, total since they started doing them)

So 90,000 in one year on repo only seems way out more like 9,000 by the sound of it (even that would be a massive increase for a year.).

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft1018.pdf

OFT seem to indicate by about summer 2008 there would have only ever been 53,000 done in total ever (not just a year, total since they started doing them)

So 90,000 in one year on repo only seems way out more like 9,000 by the sound of it.

As I said above. I was talking about 2009.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said above. I was talking about 2009.

I seriously doubt the industry could have taken on 200% more property's than they have on their books in total. (finance for one reason)

There is no refrence on the BBC site GD either (but there is for some radio 4 program about the subject but not repo specific).

You admit you cant actually remember any details and it seems like there are no figures other than the OFT's to reffrence to.

Not that you could make a mistake Graham, no.:p

(PS if you get the figures I will embrasse them with open arms and say you are correct)

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I seriously doubt the industry could have taken on 200% more property's than they have on their books in total. (finance for one reason)

Their is no refrence on the BBC site GD either so I think in reality you must have made a mistake.

You admit you cant actually remember any details and it seems like there no figures other than the OFT's to reffrence to.

Not that you could make a mistake Graham, no.:p

(PS if you get the figures I will embrasse them with open arms and say you are correct)

I'm a bit busy at the moment, and know this is referencing 2008, but this was along the same type of discussion as was on the radio. It wouldn't be on the BBC website, as like I have already said, it was a discussion on 5 live, and they simply do not put every discussion on the radio onto the website, so wouldn't expect it to be on there.

A chief executive of a group of property investment companies observed, “While it is good news that the actual number of repossessions in 2008 is 5,000 less than the 45,000 the CML [Council of Mortgage Lenders] predicted, this is sadly not a result of mortgage lenders making strenuous efforts to avoid repossession, as the CML claims.
“Rather, it is a result of the large rise in sale and rent back agreements, which is enabling many people to stay in their homes which would otherwise have become repossession statistics.”

There is also this:

14 August 2009Although the data is collected correctly by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) it does not offer a true reflection of the current market conditions, these figures are misleading as there is no taking into account the number of homes being sold by families to private landlords, often referred to as 'sale and rent back scheme'.
Many of these sales under 'sale and rent back' are conducted to prevent the home being repossessed and the seller then usually remains in the property, albeit being owned by someone else, and pays rent, so in effect becomes a tenant.
It is estimated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) that some 50,000 of these homes have been sold under this scheme over the past 'few' years and it is estimated that about 20,000 to 25,000 of these have been sold during 2008 alone. I believe that because 'sale and rent back' was not an option back in 1991 when 76,000 homes were repossessed then the true figure for this year without 'sale and rent back' would be around 80,000 - 85,000 homes, this would then make it higher than those figures back in 1991.

I MAY have been getting the 90k figure from this 80-85,000 figure used above.

I think it would be easier for me to simply say this is the case to save going round in circles. I can certainly remember the "saving" 90,000 repo's on the radio though.

But as I have no evidence to back it up, I'll jusyt say I got mixed up with the 85k. My point sill stands in all honesty.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I MAY have been getting the 90k figure from this 80-85,000 figure used above.

I think it would be easier for me to simply say this is the case. I can certainly remember the "saving" 90,000 repo's on the radio though.

But as I have no evidence to back it up, I'll jusyt say I got mixed up with the 85k. My point sill stands in all honesty.

Going on the size of the operation 10-15,000 (it was 75K repos for last year wasn't it) would be a massive increase and sounds about right GD.

TBH if you had said 10-15000 had done it I would not have questioned you, but you did say.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

over 90,000 people used it in 2009, according to the BBC (which I wrote about a while ago). That's another 90,000 less repo's

I cant agree they mean the same thing. but yes it may have slightly lowered the number of repos last year.