Britain 'can not afford another housing boom' - Minister

Orpheo

puddy wrote: »

has anybody here honestly ever got a mortgage without showing income then? i must be in the minority then as all the mortgages ive ever had have come with a request for bank statements, payslips and proof of credit cards etc

Yes. My last two mortgages through HBOS. Both times I was explicitly told that they would not require proof of income. Furthermore I got a mortgage offer (offer, not AIP) from HBOS in the autumn of 2008 without providing proof of income. Fortunately, I have never lied about our income.

DervProf

Orpheo wrote: »

Yes. My last two mortgages through HBOS. Both times I was explicitly told that they would not require proof of income. Furthermore I got a mortgage offer (offer, not AIP) from HBOS in the autumn of 2008 without providing proof of income. Fortunately, I have never lied about our income.

If this is really true (and I`m not doubting you), then it confirms what I`ve thought - Halif***ed and probably Northern Wreck, Bradford & Bungley etc were all simply debt pushers. Hopefully the FSA will put a stop to this, but it will be too little, too late.

Radiantsoul

puddy wrote: »

has anybody here honestly ever got a mortgage without showing income then? i must be in the minority then as all the mortgages ive ever had have come with a request for bank statements, payslips and proof of credit cards etc

I moved area and the mortgage company did not check out my new job, although they did check bank statements and got a reference from my old job.

des_cartes

ILW wrote: »

Does seem that overall that situation would produce many more "winners" than "losers". If overall housing costs were to fall I believe the economy would be in much better shape. eg. More disposable income, less benefits being paid etc etc.
Sure many will disagree though.

On this very forum I have had responses from people who think high house prices are good even though it costs them far more to trade up. I think this must be a uniquely British thing. I can't believe there is anywhere else where some peple actually want to pay more for the most expensive purchase they will ever make.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Wookster wrote: »

Hamish... oh dear. Hope you were sitting when you read this.

Why? Was it supposed to concern me? :rotfl:

Let's take a look at what he said......

Grant Shapps said the country was in need of long-term stability in the housing market,

Long term stability..... Sounds lovely.

Where do we sign up?

another sharp rise in prices would result in "a lost generation of home buyers".

Better build some houses then. Three million or so in the next 15 years ought to do the trick.;)

Of course, that's now impossible seeing as Grant and his mates have launched the new NIMBY charter....

Wait..... I don't suppose a politician is saying one thing and doing another, are they?

Why, politicians would never do a thing like that.......

He also attacked the previous Labour government for overseeing a ten-year surge in the cost of homes.



Mr Shapps told Channel 4 News: "If you allow a housing boom as they [Labour] did between 1997 and 2007 to get out of control, this is the kind of mess you end up in.

Now, where have I heard that before?

Oh yes.....

"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown-1997

"It is in everyone's interest to have stable house prices for a long time, because the only way we can make sure housing is more affordable for future generations is not to have these crazy housing booms.

"We can't go on as a nation thinking that housing is something too expensive for regular people."

So basically, Grant thinks there will be no return to Labour boom and bust.

Nope.... Still sounds very familiar.

Sure I've heard it before.

I wonder where.....

"There will be no return to Tory boom and bust."
Gordon Brown--1997

It can be in everyones interests as much as you like.

But unless you build more houses, you may as well wish for world peace.:rotfl:

Anyway, back to all those "excluded" first time buyers.

I wonder what the real reason is?

Separate research suggested 200,000 first-time buyers – a key component of the housing market – have been excluded from the market during the past four years.

The findings by insurer Genworth Financial blamed banks’ tighter lending criteria for the decline and suggested it will take a decade to fix the problems in the mortgage market.

Ah. Mortgage rationing.

Epic fail wookie.... Must try harder next time.:D

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Better build some houses then. Three million or so in the next 15 years ought to do the trick.;)

Of course, that's now impossible seeing as Grant and his mates have launched the new NIMBY charter....





Anyway, back to all those "excluded" first time buyers.

I wonder what the real reason is?



Ah. Mortgage rationing.

So, you are pointing out that there is, or will be a shortage of property. Is that a good or bad thing Hamish ?

You then remind us of what you were complaining about the other day, mortgage rationing.

So, if there`s a fire, do you pour petrol on it ?

Graham_Devon

I have a feeling were going to hear lots more about mortgage rationing, nasty banks, need for more fairy money, need for government to give out mortgages at beneficial -5% interest rates etc etc etc

And lots of smilies will be put all over posts if theres even a sniff of extra stimulus needed as the economy is so screwed.

mbga9pgf

One thing is for sure, rates aint going anywhere for a long long time.

I would say if you have the capital to back it up, purchasing now might be a good option IF you can haggle a humongous discount.

Think probate and repos here chaps. I would be looking at paying estimated value in late 2003/early 04 and not a penny more.

Only if you have 30% deposit and can secure a decent long term tracker IMHO.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ah. Mortgage rationing.

Epic fail wookie.... Must try harder next time.:D

There is no mortgage rationing, by any definition of rationing I know. Unless you consider there is also Bentley rationing.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

So, you are pointing out that there is, or will be a shortage of property. Is that a good or bad thing Hamish ?

You then remind us of what you were complaining about the other day, mortgage rationing.

So, if there`s a fire, do you pour petrol on it ?

24 months from now, the first of the biggest generation in UK history, bigger even than the boomers, will start to reach the current average FTB age.

This demographic surge lasts for a decade, and will see the numbers of FTB age youngsters increase by almost 40% from todays annual level at it's peak.

Markets ration scarce resources through price. There is no other way.

Your "solution" seems to be to prevent people from buying houses by rationing mortgages through higher mortgage prices..... so that the same people aren't prevented from buying houses by rationing houses through higher house prices.

I take it you see the insanity of that approach?