London Has Peaked

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So did I dream that they were begging for money on the internet to launch an expensive and pointless case, and are now thinking about an appeal? That is more than mere annoyance, it is the action of people who know the game is up but need a mental distraction from their impending bankruptcy. And also, if you feel the need to post about it at 3 am it can`t be as small a deal as you would like to pretend :rotfl:

Didn't West Brom increase their rates for multiple BTL owners in 2013?

How many of them do you think went bankrupt as a result? About 15 would be my guess.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

So did I dream that they were begging for money on the internet to launch an expensive and pointless case, and are now thinking about an appeal? That is more than mere annoyance, it is the action of people who know the game is up but need a mental distraction from their impending bankruptcy. And also, if you feel the need to post about it at 3 am it can`t be as small a deal as you would like to pretend :rotfl:

I never said that it was a small deal! If our mortgages were with WB our annual profits would be reduced from £125k to about £95k that would be an annoyance, but it wouldn't be a 'small deal' (at least not to me, £30k is worth arguing over), but they'll go back up sometime, but nevertheless I would find that annoying. Would I find it annoying enough to get involved in an appeal, well I might, from when this was done until rates go back up anyway might be as long as 6 years. So about £180k, would you want to avoid paying another £180k interest payments, I certainly would, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a 'big deal'. The point you are missing is that they still had quite a few good years of lower rates.


What revised rate are they actually paying anyway? (in the above figures I assumed back up to pre-crash levels, but they probably haven't gone up that much). They are probably lower.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

And also, if you feel the need to post about it at 3 am it can`t be as small a deal as you would like to pretend :rotfl:

Does that make this (posted at about 4am) also a 'big deal'::rotfl:

chucknorris wrote: »

Current punishment is far too light, and I don't think 2 years is going far enough, but at least it is a step in the right direction. I am sick of reading about someone who killed or seriously hurt their dog or other pet, and all they get is a suspended sentence, a fine and banned for 10 years from owning an animal.

wotsthat

chucknorris wrote: »

What revised rate are they actually paying anyway? It is probably lower than when rates fell, and if so, they are still paying less than pre-crash.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920905/Lender-accused-rip-buy-let-deals-Building-society-accused-raising-rates-whim-boost-coffers.html

The court heard that when Mr Alexander, an investor with a string of buy-to-let properties, entered into the mortgage, he believed it was a fixed rate of 6.29 per cent for four years, followed by a tracker at base rate plus 1.99 per cent until the end of the mortgage term.......

The court heard that the interest rate hike has now been reduced from 2 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

This chap has gone from 6.29% (and presumably didn't go bust) to 3.5% and Crashy's worried about his 'impending bankruptcy'.

Edit: he's gone from 6.29% to 3.5% (not 2.0%)

westernpromise

Some of those posters on HPC sound like they are not only vicious and spiteful, but also mentally unstable. I guess that's what being wrong for 20 years does to you.

chucknorris

westernpromise wrote: »

Some of those posters on HPC sound like they are not only vicious and spiteful, but also mentally unstable. I guess that's what being wrong for 20 years does to you.

You mean they started off normal?

lisyloo

The mistake many BTL`ers/mortgage debtors made was that they thought the bankers were on their side.

It seems to me that the establishment is still on the side of BTL and also on the side of supporting house prices.
Why?
Pension rule changes will allow some pensioners to invest in BTL. Personally I don't think the numbers who have sufficient money or inclunation will be huge but as you say it's what happens at the margins that matter.
Also changes to rules about paying for care homes mean that families can now BTL a home to pay for care fees.

You might call this kicking the can down the road and I might too, but with new schemes coming in all the time, it looks to me that this can carry for longer. How long? Who knows? But I do remeber lots of people telling me to STR in 2001. I didn't listen which worked out well for me.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920905/Lender-accused-rip-buy-let-deals-Building-society-accused-raising-rates-whim-boost-coffers.html



This chap has gone from 6.29% (and presumably didn't go bust) to 3.5% and Crashy's worried about his 'impending bankruptcy'.

Edit: he's gone from 6.29% to 3.5% (not 2.0%)

Exactly my point. So in fact rates have only gone up 1.5%?

If so, then I am in fact saying that it is a small deal

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

But I do remeber lots of people telling me to STR in 2001. I didn't listen which worked out well for me.

This sounds unbelievable, but I assure you that it is true, there was actually an IFA called Jonathon Davies on HPC who STR in about 2002 or 2003!

westernpromise

chucknorris wrote: »

This sounds unbelievable, but I assure you that it is true, there was actually an IFA called Jonathon Davies on HPC who STR in about 2002 or 2003!

The biggest loser I can recall was a guy called John Urbanek, who in about 2000 gave up a £55k a year job, sent his wife out to work as waitress, lightened his exposure to UK property by downsizing, and then put the money into tech stocks.

There are some people you simply can't tell.