Renters pushed to breaking point as Britain's selfish homeowners gloat their hands

Generali

Even worse, NRK were warned many times by the regulator and simply failed to do anything to increase their equity or over-reliance on short term money market funding.

ruggedtoast

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm not convinced that's the case. They probably could buy, if they cut back and saved like mad. But they may have to move further afield.


I've rented this place for over a decade. It's cost me no more in rent than it would have in interest, I haven't had to pony up for any of the building maintenance over the years (.e.g. nearly £10k per flat to repair the roof and chimneys), or the building insurance. The one single main advantage though, is I have been able to live in this flat without funding a penny in capital contributions. The capital appreciation? I couldn't care less. I would have needed a £250k mortgage to buy this flat or one like it. No thank you.


I've had my fill of mortgages over the years. Yes, you make money when you sell but you need all of it to buy the next property. And in the interim, that's £1,000 a month that the house, via the bank, has guzzled for itself instead of being available for you to spend and enjoy.

Without knowing what your rent is I can't comment on this. For most people renting is a losing proposition simply because the cost of renting, combined with having to move not infrequently and paying agents fees, is too high.

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.....There were a number of reasons UK banks got into trouble, but irresponsible lending to UK residential mortgage holders, or the performance of UK residential loan books, were not among them.

Really?

So why was the Northern Rock lying about its arrears?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/13/former-northern-rock-boss-fined

Cornucopia

Northern Rock (no matter what its internal issues might have been) was not the cause of the banking crisis. More accurately, it was the banking crisis that finally caused sufficient stress to Northern Rock to cause it to fail.

It relied too heavily on raising funds in the market, and when that became unviable, its finances collapsed.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Without knowing what your rent is I can't comment on this. For most people renting is a losing proposition simply because the cost of renting, combined with having to move not infrequently and paying agents fees, is too high.

Indeed. For some people renting is perfectly acceptable, it depends on their circumstances.

The mistake that people make (here, on forums generally, and in life) is to assume that because something works for them, it is universally good. When in fact, not only may it not be universally good, it may not even be universally possible.

JencParker

caronoel wrote: »

This is per property, not per occupant.

I rent out one of my flats in Clapham (3 beds / 2 baths) to four sharers (two couples) for a total of £1,850.

That works out at well under £500 / head, which aint bad in my book.

I'd fully agree with the comment about the desireability of longer term tenancies: both tenants and LLs would welcome the stability.

Two 'COUPLES' - those not in a partnership/live in relationship are well and truly stuffed.

JencParker

ukcarper wrote: »

They should have thought about that before starting family. If they are in their forties they could have bought when prices were much lower. I don't think saving is an issue if you are determined you can save I know people who have. The issue is earning enough to get that £325k mortgage but if they are they could save.

What a sick little person you are. If they waited they would be too old to have children - they can't win.


Besides, it is not the saving of a deposit that is a problem, it is being able to get a mortgage awarded. Ironic that they can rent a flat where the monthly rental is more than monthly repayments for a mortgage, but they can't get the mortgage. No wonder BTL are laughing all the way to the bank.

ukcarper

JencParker wrote: »

What a sick little person you are. If they waited they would be too old to have children - they can't win.


Besides, it is not the saving of a deposit that is a problem, it is being able to get a mortgage awarded. Ironic that they can rent a flat where the monthly rental is more than monthly repayments for a mortgage, but they can't get the mortgage. No wonder BTL are laughing all the way to the bank.

If you stopped insulting person and read complete threads you will see that I said it's getting the mortgage not deposit that is the problem.

Why would it be to late if they earn enough to get mortgage they could save deposit in a couple of years if they are determined enough.

Rent is quite often less than mortgage repayments you can rent a £240k house where I am for £900 a month to buy that house with 10% deposit it would cost you £1033 a month for 25 years at 3%.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

If you stopped insulting person and read complete threads you will see that I said it's getting the mortgage not deposit that is the problem.

Why would it be to late if they earn enough to get mortgage they could save deposit in a couple of years if they are determined enough.

Rent is quite often less than mortgage repayments you can rent a £240k house where I am for £900 a month to buy that house with 10% deposit it would cost you £1033 a month for 25 years at 3%.

Where I am the average local wage is probably less than £24k a year for people doing white collar work.

A 3 bed terrace is about £200k plus. Rental £850-£1000.

Maybe because you are well off you don't really understand what it is like to earn an average wage. And maybe because you are 117 years old, you seem to forget how short people's salad days are. Yes if you leave education, live at home and eat beans until you are 32, then immediately find a spouse who is also working, you probably can get a mortgage somewhere average and start a family.

But most people don't do that, and there is no particular reason why they should have to. The housing shortage is artificial and designed to make persons such as yourself vote 'the right way', with the happy consequence of making rentier types even richer,

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Where I am the average local wage is probably less than £24k a year for people doing white collar work.

The average wage, or the average for white-collar workers?

A 3 bed terrace is about £200k plus. Rental £850-£1000.

So, about £125 per week, each for a couple?

Maybe because you are well off you don't really understand what it is like to earn an average wage. And maybe because you are 117 years old, you seem to forget how short people's salad days are.

This is utter nonsense. You don't need to buy a house to have a family. And if you feel that you should be having children at a point in your life when you cannot afford a house, you should.