So what's the solution?

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

it's nothing to do with party politics - i understand his posts but i don't understand Nick's point or even the purpose of the thread.

Thank you. I thought it was because I wasn't articulating it properly.

All I was trying to do was:
1) confirm what the problem was
2) identify what possible solutions there were
3) see what the barriers to that solution were, and which were negotiable.

I think we've garnered that the solution lies in more property, although others have put forward other suggestions that will help.

You and I still seem to disagree, possibly only semantically, on the problem.

I'm getting a feel for what people seem to think are negotiating "red lines" (within this entirely unscientific group) and what are not. For instance I don't think the green belt or avoiding negative equity are red lines (although they have been in the past); but losing homes, or the idea that everyone must have a house are. Which seems at odds with the received wisdom/media focus - maybe things are changing, and with that change there are new opportunities.

Saw an excellent play last night - "Earthquakes in London" at the National. Very much about responsibility to later generations, and sharing resources.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

They do own it, check the deeds, do you think they get registered at the land registry under the banks name?
They just have a loan secured against it (called a mortgage).



Wonder how often that was also said in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s

Yes that is something that many don't comprehend, apart from around 1995 most people, over the years have struggled when buying a property, I know I certainly did when I was a FTB in 1988.

Really2

leitmotif wrote: »

The deeds from the Land Registry always specify the name of the lender. The buyer is certainly not the only name mentioned on the deeds, unless they're a cash buyer.

I hold the deeds to my house? are you telling me the bank own it? Even though it is registered in my name and I have the entitlement?

Forget the fluff you are talking rubbish, as a owner I can sell the house if I like without asking the bank so how do they own it?

They can only sell it if they gain possession, the only way they can do that is going to court if I have defaulted on the loan held against it.

Face it, your talking rubbish. Anyone with a mortgage own their home and have a loan secured against it.

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

Thank you. I thought it was because I wasn't articulating it properly.

All I was trying to do was:
1) confirm what the problem was
2) identify what possible solutions there were
3) see what the barriers to that solution were, and which were negotiable.

I think we've garnered that the solution lies in more property, although others have put forward other suggestions that will help.

i don't think there is a real solution IMO - society engineers itself to suit whatever the circumstances, that's why i referred to recent history because it was never comfortable to buy property, it's always been hard.

i'm not 100% in favour of building more property we encourage less land to be used to grow food - that's where our priority should lie not building property IMO.

Really2

leitmotif wrote: »

Additionally, with children under 18 making up a good 20%+ of the population (I assume), it's simply not true that 71% of people own their own home.

Thats were you are losing it,

71% of houses are owned. Not 71% of people own.

nickmason

chucky wrote: »

but the price you pay for the property plus the mortgage rate where the better time. i know that you know this but the ticket price of the house isn't the be all and end all.

for example someone buying in 2007 whose house price has fallen with a good 2007 mortgage is/could be better off than someone buying the same property in 2010 with todays mortgage rates.

the combination of the two is what is key - that's what i'm saying here.

agreed - which I believe has been one of the driving forces for long term fixes. They won't solve the problem perfectly, as fixes are vulnerable to inflation... it seems to me that there is a lot of uncertainty involved in the house-buying process, and that that is not helpful. Not entirely avoidable, mind you!

see above why i say it's a good time and also to add it's also because the minority do not own anyway - politically they're not important as they're in the minority (currently). that's why i'm berating you for being a Tory because the housing market is a political tool for all parties. the current Government is Tory.

I suspect most MPs would surprise you by how much they care about the minorities. Not because they bring votes, but because it's the job of government to look after everyone. The likes of David Willetts are seriously concerned about what is happening to the younger cohorts.

nothing tells me you are and that's why i asked the question.

Fair point. I was prickly because of how you phrased it.

i find you coming onto this forum to get the right perspective and even 'facts' quite worrying, especially with the nature of these forums and the kind of 'people' that post here.

I'm not so foolish to trust this forum, any more than I take as gospel what someone tells me in the pub, at my surgeries or if I am out canvassing. But it does have the value of bringing together a lot of different perspectives and good brains/experience into one place.
it's not the best approach and that's why you will get a hard time from me. Call it preliminary research or good old fashioned listening.

sorry but you'll have to suck it up.

Fine. That actually brought a genuine smile to my face. Every time you throw some "Tory" comment at me I shall take it as a genuine warning not to take the forum too seriously, and be grateful for it.

nickmason

Really2 wrote: »

I hold the deeds to my house? are you telling me the bank own it? Even though it is registered in my name and I have the entitlement?

Forget the fluff you are talking rubbish, as a owner I can sell the house if I like without asking the bank so how do they own it?

They can only sell it if they gain possession, the only way they can do that is going to court if I have defaulted on the loan held against it.

Face it, your talking rubbish. Anyone with a mortgage own their home and have a loan secured against it.

You're both right.

The deeds will make it clear that you own the house.
The mortgage contract will have a security on it as per above.
The Land Registry (which doesn't have the deeds) will record ownership and mortgages/covenants against it.

chucky

leitmotif wrote: »

In other words, it's all well and good to say 71% is higher than 40%, but if that higher proportion comprises a large number of people who have stretched themselves to near breaking point in order to get on the property ladder, then that's hardly an indicator of 'good times'.

the salary multiplie hasn't changed much so not a really relevant point sorry.

it's about 3 times income, it would have been just over 2.5 times in the 1990s

Really2

nickmason wrote: »

You're both right.

The deeds will make it clear that you own the house.
The mortgage contract will have a security on it as per above.
The Land Registry (which doesn't have the deeds) will record ownership and mortgages/covenants against it.

So who Legally owns it until/unless the covenants are breached?

Also if I sold a house and the bank owned it would they not reclaim the house off the new owners in cases of NE (like cars sold with finance against them) not come after the previous owner for the debt? just a thought.;)

All the bank owns is the debt against the property, until covenants are breached they are not legal owners. That is why debt is held against a person on default, not the property (like car finance outstanding)

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

Fine. That actually brought a genuine smile to my face. Every time you throw some "Tory" comment at me I shall take it as a genuine warning not to take the forum too seriously, and be grateful for it.

and so you shouldn't - it's a virtual world