Used their home as a cash cow through re-mortgaging.. now in deep do do

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I disagree. If they hadn't gone IO they wouldn't have been able to afford the house in the first place. They make that clear.

I assume, they, like so many others, only went IO as it gave them a bigger house than they could actually afford via a repayment mortgage. Trouble is, bigger house means bigger maintenance, something they clearly couldn't afford.

Remortgaging to pay for the upkeep is a symptom of the IO mortgage allowing them something they couldn't afford to run.

Hmnn, I'm sure your post didn't say this before the edit. However, it's good to know that the good sense I'm posting is helping others to rework their posts.

Your post still needs some more work though as they clearly weren't beggard by the 'maintenance and upkeep' of the house. I know many on here think houses need knew roofs and central heating boilers every year, but that's not actually true. Houses need very little maintenance to keep them ticking over.

The previous owners had been in there for 30 years according to the article and were an older couple. It's not outrageous to assume that the house needed updating and that the decor would not be to the taste of a younger couple.

What beggard these people, apart from the school fees, were the renovations which I'm assuming were a remodelling of the house including expensive items like kitchen and bathrooms, and if they were MEWing to do it, I'm also going to assume that they went with top notch bespoke oak cabinets, quartz worktops, Arga cooker, roll-top baths, etc. etc.

mystic_trev

chalkie99 wrote: »

Try Googling this woman's name.

She loves the limelight

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=SHONA+SIBARY

I just love this bit!

Your dog can soon tell if it's pulling a dead weight.

It certainly can love....it certainly can.

chewmylegoff

RenovationMan wrote: »

Perhaps not though because I bet their kids still go to private school.

the article is written by a daily mail journalist whose past articles include:

"i couldn't live without my housekeeper" - dated 2011, i.e. years after they had to sell their home and

"i've had to sack 12 au pairs" - again dated well after they took the decision to sell their house.

i don't agree that there is any real parallel between what they did and what you have done. they bought a house on an IO mortgage and just spent loads of money on unnecessary stuff, MEWing where necessary, and hoping that the price of the house would increase forever.

you have bought on an interest only mortgage, with the intention of paying down the capital. presumably you've got an IO mortgage because you want to make lumpy capital repayments, rather than regular ones. this doesn't appear to be a gamble that the price of your property will increase to cover the fact that you're spending more money than you earn.

EDIT: they also appear to have had a fourth child after selling the house...

RenovationMan

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i don't agree that there is any real parallel between what they did and what you have done. they bought a house on an IO mortgage and just spent loads of money on unnecessary stuff, MEWing where necessary, and hoping that the price of the house would increase forever.

you have bought on an interest only mortgage, with the intention of paying down the capital. presumably you've got an IO mortgage because you want to make lumpy capital repayments, rather than regular ones. this doesn't appear to be a gamble that the price of your property will increase to cover the fact that you're spending more money than you earn.

Given the info you've uncovered, I agree with you, there are no real parallels between ourselves and this family except buying a dream house on an IO mortgage. Where the parallel ends is that we're just delighted to get the dream house, we are not after the dream lifestyle too.

You're correct about our reasons for having the IO mortgage, plus it gives us more security than a repayment knowing that we can stop our captial repayments if needs be and we can use our reduced outgoings to fund the renovations.

the_flying_pig

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the article is written by a daily mail journalist whose past articles include:

"i couldn't live without my housekeeper" - dated 2011, i.e. years after they had to sell their home and

"i've had to sack 12 au pairs" - again dated well after they took the decision to sell their house.

i don't agree that there is any real parallel between what they did and what you have done. they bought a house on an IO mortgage and just spent loads of money on unnecessary stuff, MEWing where necessary, and hoping that the price of the house would increase forever.

you have bought on an interest only mortgage, with the intention of paying down the capital. presumably you've got an IO mortgage because you want to make lumpy capital repayments, rather than regular ones. this doesn't appear to be a gamble that the price of your property will increase to cover the fact that you're spending more money than you earn.

EDIT: they also appear to have had a fourth child after selling the house...

yeah - i think this writer is the print edition of the radio talkshow 'shock jocks' who say something very foolish on-mic to try & goad people into calling in with angry replies.

an article she did a while back revealed that two of her four kids attended a £12k a year school. nothing that she says about herself makes me think that she's nearly well-off enough to be able to do that and live in a top-notch house as well. that's all.

from what she says the real difference between her current and previous home isnt' that the new one's rented, but rather that it's more modest.

this seems a very straightforward case of downsizing to improve monthly cashflow. possibly mixed in with a bit of STR hoping that prices would tank more than they have done.

ess0two

Yeah this one article proves all IO mortgagees are in the same predicament:cool:

The usual frothers have stepped upto the plate....

Intoodeep

mystic_trev wrote: »

I just love this bit!



It certainly can love....it certainly can.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

chewmylegoff

the_flying_pig wrote: »

yeah - i think this writer is the print edition of the radio talkshow 'shock jocks' who say something very foolish on-mic to try & goad people into calling in with angry replies.

an article she did a while back revealed that two of her four kids attended a £12k a year school. nothing that she says about herself makes me think that she's nearly well-off enough to be able to do that and live in a top-notch house as well. that's all.

from what she says the real difference between her current and previous home isnt' that the new one's rented, but rather that it's more modest.

this seems a very straightforward case of downsizing to improve monthly cashflow. possibly mixed in with a bit of STR hoping that prices would tank more than they have done.

so , if they had saved that £24k/year since selling the house about 4 years ago (must have been pre-IR falls at back end of 2008), they would now have £100k for a house deposit, on top of whatever equity they had left from the old place.

if they had lived in a cheaper rented place, and not paid a house keeper, they could probably have bought back in within 2 years.

so this boils down to "we spent all of our money on luxury items instead of saving it, and now we don't have a deposit for a house."

go figure.

iB1

Hmmm...

From reading her other articles from the Google link posted, she sounds like a mini Liz Jones. Either that, or she's just accepting the Mail £££ to write up exaggerated BS about herself and her family. Some of that stuff is TMI!

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

(they say they remortaged for school fees and to keep up with the house maintenance) .

Were looking at private schooling for our children.
One of the perks from owning rented property is that the income can pay the school fee's.
We've even discussed from a worst case example of if we had to sell the properties in order to pay the fee's then we'd seriously consider doing that.

One of our primary views is that our role as parents is to provide as best an education opportunity as we can, thus hopefully allowing our children to start from a better position than we did.

I'd rather own less and provide better for my children if the needs arose.