Mortgage fraud cases soar to a 22-year high

Wookster

But but but... houses have never been more affordable?

That's what hamish said...

errrr

IveSeenTheLight

Wookster wrote: »

But but but... houses have never been more affordable?

That's what hamish said...

errrr

Wookster, answer this.

In which year has it been recorded that owner occupancy in the UK was at it's highest level?

Surely with owner occupancy, it's an indicator that more people have been able to buy and thus an indicator that they have been able to afford a mortgage

You could of course go back to an era say 100 years ago when conditions were much worse and less people owned their properties.

It's only in the last 30 - 40 years that more people have been able to afford to own their property.

IveSeenTheLight

Bumping to highlight for a response from wookster

ILW

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Wookster, answer this.

In which year has it been recorded that owner occupancy in the UK was at it's highest level?

Surely with owner occupancy, it's an indicator that more people have been able to buy and thus an indicator that they have been able to afford a mortgage

You could of course go back to an era say 100 years ago when conditions were much worse and less people owned their properties.

It's only in the last 30 - 40 years that more people have been able to afford to own their property.

I believe private renting was a lot more popular 30-40 years ago, partly down to longer tenancy agreements and controlled rents, More like the continental system. also home ownership then was not considered as much as a money making exercise as a housing issue.

IveSeenTheLight

ILW wrote: »

I believe private renting was a lot more popular 30-40 years ago, partly down to longer tenancy agreements and controlled rents, More like the continental system. also home ownership then was not considered as much as a money making exercise as a housing issue.

I think that home ownership was simply not considered for the majority as they could not afford (no easy credit)

Naturally it is better to be a home owner as you have control over the property and do not have that costs once the mortgage is paid off. This is why it is perceived as better than long term renting , regardless of property value.

You are very true that private renting was much higher, much higher than it is today.
Social renting was also higher.

There simply is not the same percentage of properties available for rent, partly as previous renters bought their property (RTB) and in general people had access to funds to buy rather than rent.

Can you see a return to an era where there are more private rented properties and less owner occupancy?

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Bumping to highlight for a response from wookster

Bumping again.
Plenty of posts from Wookster today but not answering this one

Exocet

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Bumping again.
Plenty of posts from Wookster today but not answering this one

I'll answer it, got nothing much else to do.

Assuming it's about affordability here's my angle. If you equate ability to borrow ridiculous sums of money with affordability then yes it has been more affordable until recently. I prefer to actually buy something when I buy it, not borrow every single penny I can and hope something will turn up tomorrow.

If it wasn't about affordability then please let me know and I may be able to help.

IveSeenTheLight

Exocet wrote: »

I'll answer it, got nothing much else to do.

Assuming it's about affordability here's my angle. If you equate ability to borrow ridiculous sums of money with affordability then yes it has been more affordable until recently. I prefer to actually buy something when I buy it, not borrow every single penny I can and hope something will turn up tomorrow.

If it wasn't about affordability then please let me know and I may be able to help.

I appreciate your input and I'm generally agree with you.
Other than mortgages for my property, I do not buy anything that I cannot afford. I do not borrow any money.

I do have a credit card, but that is for convenience and is paid off every month.

Properties and mortgages are a totally seperate issue in my experience.
I certainly have benefittied from credit being available. I have learned from my parents generation that it was extremely hard to get a mortgage back then (70's) and I doubt if I would be in the same position now as I would have been if the same requirements were in place.

Exocet wrote: »

I prefer to actually buy something when I buy it, not borrow every single penny I can and hope something will turn up tomorrow.

If you genuinely apply the above to property and not borrow, then you either have a bloody good paying job, have inherited the funds else your likely never to be an owner of property.

For most, they need access to funds to buy property.

This is my point, it's ony become easier to own a property as credit access became easier.
Take away the access to credit and you essentially restrict availability for of those who can become homeowners.

julieq

Exocet wrote: »

Assuming it's about affordability here's my angle. If you equate ability to borrow ridiculous sums of money with affordability then yes it has been more affordable until recently. I prefer to actually buy something when I buy it, not borrow every single penny I can and hope something will turn up tomorrow.

That's a classically penny wise pound foolish attitude. It's the economics of your Gran. You're free do do anything you like and if you really think it's better not to have any debts that's entirely your own decision. But it's equally the case that without debt in the broadest sense there would be no wealth, because wealth is generated as a rule from the idea of borrowing from the future (employing capital, more often than not actually borrowed) to generate returns in the present.

Since Graham hasn't bothered to answer the question about where the money to pay savings returns comes from, I'll answer his question about where the money needed to pay for house prices comes from.

Take a £20K salary at age 20. Ignore promotions and just compound the salary at 3% a year and sum that over 45 working years.

You get £1.85M.

Keep 60% of that and you get around £1.1M income. This is ONE person. Add in another and you'll get anything between 50% to 100% of that depending on the pattern of their lives.

People's work is valuable. It is perfectly reasonable to borrow a few hundred K against that level of lifetime income and you can still have a fair few nice holidays and the odd large screen TV. It's hardly Micawberism. And I repeat, this is not anticipating promotions or seniority increases which most people will get.

Obviously if things turn against you you can hit trouble, but to be honest if things turn against you to that extent you're in trouble anyway. The likelihood is low.

In fact bad debt provisions against overall levels of ownership are an excellent way of indicating affordability. And bad debt provisions are low. You can froth from now til doomsday on how cheating fraudsters are systematically inflating house prices and that it ISN'T FAIR, but there is simply NO evidence that this happened, and now that there are essentially no self cert loans house prices are still inflating back.

That ought to tell you something. But it won't because the bear analysis is akin to extreme religious faith. Debt is bad and should be expurgated, and the profligate will be punished in an apocalyptic cleansing. Except just like the millenial cults waiting for the second coming, it never seems to quite ever happen.

Wookster

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Bumping to highlight for a response from wookster

Owner occupancy is a red herring.

We have seen a remarkable fall in the number of transactions, yet mortgage fraud has increased. Why do you think this is?