House Price Crash Discussion Thread

hgllgh

Austin_Allegro wrote: »

Also

11. The ability to move quickly if necessary

12. A free round the world trip paid for by not paying any rent/mortgage while you're away :beer:

ivegotabig1

Another Indication of a market in recession !!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7061814.stm

paulrn_2

The ability to pay rent for the rest of your life, when I will be living on my pensions in my paid for house

maidenmanhattan

Hi guys

Wanted to ask something that I think (hope!) no one has asked before on here...:p

A few years ago (when I first bought my flat in 2001) they used to have a mortgage indemnity premium added to your mortgage which I believe covered the bank with an insurance policy. Being more financially clued up now, I am assuming they bought themselves said policy from a 3rd party.
Luckily I was fortunate that I bught just before the property boom:beer: . But my understanding now is that if you got repossessed and there was a shortfall in payment then this is what the policy covered the bank for. :T

Nowadays there seems to be a higher lending charge which "allegedly" does a similar thing, althought the banks seem to feel entitled to charge a figure off the top of their heads for this, making a lucrative profit.:mad:

Boyf and I are about to buy a place in London and things are obviously not looking quite so prosperous to put it mildly! Been doing some research on the net (should there be a HPC in the next few years exposing us to negative equity)...so if this crash happened and you end up with negative equity and the bank were to repossess, if there was a shortfall and you had paid a HLC or MIG would this mean that the banks won't be legally entitled to pursue you for the shortfall? And is it therefore better to actually take a mortgage that has a HLC applied to it for this specific reason?

I have tried researching the 80's HPC for info and as far as I can read the banks still pursue people for the shortfall. I can't see them being legally entitled to do this however. Can anyone share any experience or thought on the homeowners exposure and legal rights in this scenario? :rotfl:

(I'm not idiot enough to think that paying a HLC would solve everyone's problems in a HPC situation but I just wondered what makes the banks able to charge us these premiums then if they haven't used it to purchase adequate cover? So its making me think that they don't buy a policy from a 3rd party, they bank the money to use for their legal fees only? )

movilogo

Now, renting is cheaper than buying - it's official

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7029832.stm

merlinthehappypig

maidenmanhattan wrote: »

Hi guys

Wanted to ask something that I think (hope!) no one has asked before on here...:p

A few years ago (when I first bought my flat in 2001) they used to have a mortgage indemnity premium added to your mortgage which I believe covered the bank with an insurance policy. Being more financially clued up now, I am assuming they bought themselves said policy from a 3rd party.
Luckily I was fortunate that I bught just before the property boom:beer: . But my understanding now is that if you got repossessed and there was a shortfall in payment then this is what the policy covered the bank for. :T

Nowadays there seems to be a higher lending charge which "allegedly" does a similar thing, althought the banks seem to feel entitled to charge a figure off the top of their heads for this, making a lucrative profit.:mad:

Boyf and I are about to buy a place in London and things are obviously not looking quite so prosperous to put it mildly! Been doing some research on the net (should there be a HPC in the next few years exposing us to negative equity)...so if this crash happened and you end up with negative equity and the bank were to repossess, if there was a shortfall and you had paid a HLC or MIG would this mean that the banks won't be legally entitled to pursue you for the shortfall? And is it therefore better to actually take a mortgage that has a HLC applied to it for this specific reason?

I have tried researching the 80's HPC for info and as far as I can read the banks still pursue people for the shortfall. I can't see them being legally entitled to do this however. Can anyone share any experience or thought on the homeowners exposure and legal rights in this scenario? :rotfl:

(I'm not idiot enough to think that paying a HLC would solve everyone's problems in a HPC situation but I just wondered what makes the banks able to charge us these premiums then if they haven't used it to purchase adequate cover? So its making me think that they don't buy a policy from a 3rd party, they bank the money to use for their legal fees only? )

From the dim and distant past at the end of the 80's when we were almost in negative equity, I recall asking the same thing at the time. My understanding then was that the mortgage indemnity premium didn't help at all if the house was repossesed - you still had to pay the difference anyway. Quite what it was for wasn't explained - possibly to cover the banks if they were unable to pursue the house owner for the difference, if they had become bankrupt, for example.

Hopefully someone else might be able to clarify this.

maidenmanhattan

Thanks Chris...just wondering if the FSA could get involved if it is a "lucrative profit making scheme" created by the banks...

hgllgh

paulrn wrote: »

The ability to pay rent for the rest of your life, when I will be living on my pensions in my paid for house

the risk is, many investors who have gambled on property instead of a standard pension may see their pensions washed away by negative equity.

Personally I won't be renting for the rest of my life ... I am sitting pretty waiting for the right time to strike ... saving a huge deposit whilst renting, so reducing my eventual mortgage burden. looks like we have passed to top of the market so the time to strike is not too far away :money:

hgllgh

13. the ability to save a huge deposit whilst renting, so reducing the eventual mortgage burden

pieceoffluff

its not just the loonies on here anymore, the word is getting out to the public

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7063572.stm

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article3098910.ece

any sign of articles in the sun?