Some sensible comments from Scotland !

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Define a "risky" level of debt?

Any debt is risky, especially for the lender.


"It`s not me who needs to worry about the money I owe, it`s the lender."

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

Any debt is risky, especially for the lender.
."

Actually, lending under UK average mortgage lending standards, even the standards of 2007, is demonstrably not a risky activity for lenders.

Our exceptionally low arrears and reposession rates are testament to that fact.

morag1202

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

On housing benefit caps:



Whilst, as he points out, another 50K will lose slightly under £10 a week.

With Scotland having around 250K privately rented houses, this equates to just 20% of privately rented households losing just £40 a month. Certainly not enough to make a noticable difference in average rents, or impact house prices.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I see a flaw in your figures.
It would be good to understand how many private rented properties there are, however you make an assumption that all 50k rent from private landlords.

It's likely that your 20% figure may be considerably lower when actual figures are put in place.

From Table 24, page 64, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/impacts-of-hb-proposals.pdf

HB caseload in Scotland is 51,060 of which 28,620 are losers with average loss of £7 pw.

From http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/...ease_jul10.xls

Table 30 gives 2,392,000 households in Scotland and Table 31 says 12% of them are privately rented (287,040)

So it looks like around 10% of privately rented houses in Scotland will lose out.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Our exceptionally low arrears and reposession rates are testament to that fact.

Oh purlease.

Bank Chiefs ordered to cut reposessions: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/19/banking-repossessions-home-evictions

What you have just basically said is "There was nothing wrong with Halifax. The fact that Lloyds were wanting to buy the Halifax is testament to this" or "there was nothing wrong with the UK banking system, the fact that the government were so desperate to buy into banking and created £200bn to do so is testament to just how good the UK banking system is".

IveSeenTheLight

morag1202 wrote: »

From Table 24, page 64, http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/impacts-of-hb-proposals.pdf

HB caseload in Scotland is 51,060 of which 28,620 are losers with average loss of £7 pw.

From http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/...ease_jul10.xls

Table 30 gives 2,392,000 households in Scotland and Table 31 says 12% of them are privately rented (287,040)

So it looks like around 10% of privately rented houses in Scotland will lose out.

I do love when things can be backed up with facts.

Well done :T

From the facts above, can we therefore say that only 10% of privately rented propertis are affected by the changes with an average £7 per week effective change.

The question then is, will 10% of the LL's accomodate and lower their rental by £7 per week or with the tenants have to fund it from alternative sources?

We all know it's going to be tough and it may just be that there is no effect on the LL's and that the tenants will realocate their budget to meet their rental needs

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The question then is, will 10% of the LL's accomodate and lower their rental by £7 per week or with the tenants have to fund it from alternative sources?

We all know it's going to be tough and it may just be that there is no effect on the LL's and that the tenants will realocate their budget to meet their rental needs

But so long as it's tough on the tenant and not you, the clappy hands can continue!

:T

petebates26

Personally, I agree with most of what Loughton Monkey says, apart from the decline in building standards and profit levels.

I think the market – and a lot of people entering it will be subsidised by reduced cost routes into the market – right to buy, shared ownership etc – which obviously cost governments and councils money.

This money will come from the various forms of tax that we pay, all the way from the ground up (council tax) all the way through stamp duty and other land taxes all the way to income tax.

As long as there’s a profit to be made – whether it’s more or less profit than there used to be – businesses (builders) will continue in this line of work, as there is still a living to be made. Homeowners will continue to own as it will still be financially beneficial to them, either in reduced housing costs or in a profit made on their house price.

I see the market from a layman’s point of view – I’m only involved in it in as far as I’m a homeowner. And I fully understand, as I think most do, that you don’t get something for nothing. To be part of a profit making market, you need to be involved in laying out money – whether it’s through overpriced (?) housing, or increased taxes at one point or another.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But so long as it's tough on the tenant and not you, the clappy hands can continue!

:T

The clappy hands was for bring facts to the fore.
you should try it some time

As a LL, I market my properties accordingly.
I'm very successful in doing so with such a low void priod.

My tenants also get a very good deal from me as I have so far only adjusted rental prices between tenants to reflect the market price.

I do have one tenant that has been with me for nearly 4 years now and I have not increased their rent in line with the market prices, rewarding their loyalty and safe keeping of my property

Therefore, I am confident my rental income will not be affected and my tenants are happy as I do not make yearly increases to their rental

:T Clappy hands all round I think :T

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My tenants also get a very good deal from me as I have so far only adjusted rental prices between tenants to reflect the market price.

Because the market price went up, I assume?

Did you adjust down when the market price was down, in 2009?

Will you adjust down £7 a week if this effects the market price? It seems not, as you expect the tenant to find extra?

This isn't a pop at you per se by the way. I just find it extroidinary landlords will not reduce by a mere £7 a week, and will expect those far worse off than themselves to find the extra £7. Especially at a time many landlords are boasting just how good a deal their tracker mortgage is and how it's never been better.

Landlords don't just get that greed tag attached to them for nothing. It's these kinds of posts which really highlight it to me, considering other posts in the past about how well landlords have done from interest rates and rising rents....yet when it comes to this £7 a week, call it a tiny amount, won't affect the market....but damn, it won't effect me, tenant can damn well find it.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because the market price went up, I assume?

Did you adjust down when the market price was down, in 2009?

I believe the rental market did drop slightly at some point, but due to my marketing strategy, it didn't affect me.
So far, I've only increased the rental

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Will you adjust down £7 a week if this effects the market price? It seems not, as you expect the tenant to find extra?

I don't expect to reduce my rents, but then again, I don't rent to HB recipients.
Morag1202 reflected (with facts) that only 12% of properties in Scotland a privately rented.
Of those private rentals, I'm still not convinced how many are to HB but it looks like on 10% maximum of those private rentals.
90% like myself are unnafected.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This isn't a pop at you per se by the way. I just find it extroidinary landlords will not reduce by a mere £7 a week, and will expect those far worse off than themselves to find the extra £7. Especially at a time many landlords are boasting just how good a deal their tracker mortgage is and how it's never been better.

It's a small proportion of the market Graham.
Less than 10%
Maybe those that lease to HB will lower their rents
Why should Landlords lower if they don't need to?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Landlords don't just get that greed tag attached to them for nothing. It's these kinds of posts which really highlight it to me, considering other posts in the past about how well landlords have done from interest rates and rising rents....yet when it comes to this £7 a week, call it a tiny amount, won't affect the market....but damn, it won't effect me, tenant can damn well find it.

Greed lol

There was an anecdotal on here the other day about a kid who complained to his parent that they didn't have Sky and that they didn;t see them the same amount of time because they went out and worked.

Is it not greed that means that some people on HB can afford things that working people cannot?