How to get the equity back on an house lost

Rocksolid

John_ said:

Rocksolid said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I think you'd be better off buying one of the much better constructed homes in your native Italy to let out whilst you continue renting near (and yes 50 miles outside is still near) London. 

These were built with sand from the sea and plain iron, not sure if you get the magnitude, that was due to deep illegal activities behind, we don't build like that... The other buildings and house didn't get any damage.

You clearly do build like that, as that’s in Italy.

My London flat took a direct hit from the Luftwaffe in WWII, with ordnance designed to destroy dock structures, and is still standing.

What work are you in that you could earn £300k? That amount tends to require a good professional qualification in law or accountancy, and a good few years’ experience. You won’t be qualified to earn that amount in Finance given where you are coming from.

So an Italian can't take that salary in London? Racism ON .

I know here people think like this, I have no estimation for them , don't be surprised why foreigners are just here for work and bring money outside because here suck, almost every post communist country is better than this one (I have lived and travelled in many of them), go to see the level of happiness and welfare!

Anyway a salary between 100-300k was suggested by Business Insider, not me, but I totally agree with it considering the prices of accommodations in London and how you qualify for the mortgage affordability, do you get the point now?

AdrianC

Jamaicanmelaff said:

I was studying abroad in Pescara at that time and I’ll never forget how strong that earthquake felt there and the absolute carnage afterwards, I can’t imagine how bad it actually was in L’Aquila or how awful things were there. 

We went through l'Aquila in late 2011, three years after the 'quake.

The devastation was astonishing, and very wide-ranging. Entire sections of town were still awaiting demolition, propped up temporarily. Around the edge, new flats by the dozen, with a whole load of campervans parked outside - presumably, many had bought them as temporary accommodation in the immediate aftermath. Or as an escape route in case of a repeat...?

Rocksolid

AdrianC said:

Jamaicanmelaff said:

I was studying abroad in Pescara at that time and I’ll never forget how strong that earthquake felt there and the absolute carnage afterwards, I can’t imagine how bad it actually was in L’Aquila or how awful things were there. 

We went through l'Aquila in late 2011, three years after the 'quake.

The devastation was astonishing, and very wide-ranging. Entire sections of town were still awaiting demolition, propped up temporarily. Around the edge, new flats by the dozen, with a whole load of campervans parked outside - presumably, many had bought them as temporary accommodation in the immediate aftermath. Or as an escape route in case of a repeat...?

There is much more... The earth was opened wide at least 4 meters and deep several meters in many terrains, luckily a bit outside the city, mostly farms but you could actually built on it, that was a nightmare because it was only 19km deep, usually earthquakes are much deeper.

The scandal of bad buildings were almost all new an built without respecting regulations as I said, but in the epicenter obviously many good ones fell down too due to the underlying terrain exposed too much to waves (no sand or anything to dissipate the force, my house had a kind of sand that protected us, but we were 25-45km radius from there).

Even historical buildings such as the Castle and the huge Church were demolished in few sections, I really mean demolished during the wave. We can't really compare that to anything else before.

That part of Italy is red zone since then, but the wast majority of the country is a kind of red zone, Italy is moving, Africa is pressing, then other things down are happening too.

We all slept in tends for months, who without an house transferred to hotels that were full for years, our region economically is down since 10 years, in 2016 we had a similar one, almost same death ratio and people injured, but structure damages were much less, mostly the ones rebuild by Mafia fell down again, the others nothing.

Even Rome felt it clearly, just look the map how much distant it is , it woke up the entire country too in 30-60 seconds wave.

I could continue to talk about it, but gotta go!

Snooks2

Hannimal said:

Emmia said:
 why are you here, why don't you go back to the country you are from?

This is so unnecessary. There is a lot going on in OPs post that is just ridiculous but @Emmia you do not need to go down this route. There are other migrants here, like me, who get asked this question very often. 

This migrant thinks London house prices are relatively inexpensive compared to NYC or LA. 

theoretica

Why are earthquakes relevant?  Different places need different things out of buildings.  Some places get earthquakes, some heat, some cold, hurricanes, midges... Some have a high population density, some low.  Trying to find a nice Finnish style house in Abu Dhabai would be hard, and not what you actually wanted once you found it.  However, most people's expectations are set in childhood, often subconsciously, and don't necessarily keep up with changes.

Hannimal

eidand said:
the majority of people who come here though are not complaining all the time and only saying negative things about everything, If the OP really hates it that much then you know where the airport is ....

 I have lived in this country my entire adult life. I moved here when I was 21 and before that I spent 3 years living in various countries. I have been here for well over a decade now and I am a citizen. I am unhappy about several aspects of life in the UK, for example the property market and the ever increasing nationalism, bigotry and right-wing populism. However, I don't have anywhere else I can really go. I am a UK citizen, I don't have family ties anywhere else and my career is here. When I moved and settled in this country, I did not foresee Brexit and my understanding on how people like you perceive people like me as really rather facile and naive. It wasn't until around 2015-2016 that I understood I was now living in a country that was not what I thought I had moved to. There are several things I love and value about living here - my job, my friends, the city I live in, afternoon tea, gin-o'clock and the 'no you go first' ritual when you approach a lift at the same time with someone to name a few - but I don't buy into the British exceptionalism. 

I don't know where I would go if I went to that airport and it breaks my heart every time someone tells me to leave, asks me why I don't leave or insinuates that I should. Many British-born people also struggle to cope with the same things I do yet - even when the bigotry doesn't personally affect them. Just because the OP is struggling with British housing standards and cost doesn't meant they should be asked to leave the country. 

Hannimal

Snooks2 said:

Hannimal said:
This is so unnecessary. There is a lot going on in OPs post that is just ridiculous but @Emmia you do not need to go down this route. There are other migrants here, like me, who get asked this question very often. 

This migrant thinks London house prices are relatively inexpensive compared to NYC or LA. 

C'mon, those cities are cheap compared to Hong Kong!!! It is hardly relevant to the point I am making. There is always somewhere worse. 

steve866

Rocksolid said:

Jamaicanmelaff said:

Rocksolid said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I think you'd be better off buying one of the much better constructed homes in your native Italy to let out whilst you continue renting near (and yes 50 miles outside is still near) London. 

These were built with sand from the sea and plain iron, not sure if you get the magnitude, that was due to deep illegal activities behind, we don't build like that... The other buildings and house didn't get any damage.

My house from 1956 had no impact from it, neither the print had cracks, like new... And it's built just with good foundations and real bricks, not the new cheap ones. (to be honest we made also reinforcement later to feel safe re-doing the main wall)

Anyway, that earthquake was 6.5 under only 19km, it was hell...

Same in 2016, just lighter, the houses that fell down were just the new ones rebuilt from cool companies, again, not respecting any regulation, I hope you get the difference.

Do you recall something like this in UK?

But for how much the houses are light here, (from another point of view cheap quality), I have the sensation that they may survive to such earthquake, not sure if they will be livable inside later...

I was studying abroad in Pescara at that time and I’ll never forget how strong that earthquake felt there and the absolute carnage afterwards, I can’t imagine how bad it actually was in L’Aquila or how awful things were there.

As others have pointed out, your main issue is location. 350k goes a hell of a lot further in other parts of the UK than it does anywhere near London. I don’t like the quality of new builds personally either and doubt many would withstand an earthquake like that, but there are plenty of older solid houses around with nice thick walls
in places you don’t need a high salary to buy - mine is a 150 year old 123 m2 4 bed detached with stone walls about as thick as the length of my forearm and cost around 50% of what you’re paying for yours. You can get a 6 bed detached not too far from town or a 4 bed detached a short walk from the beach in my area for your budget. 

I wish the others here knew what an earthquake like that was.

Where the hell is that? You mean around south London?

The problem with old houses is that I can't use help to buy and I have to put down too much money, plus you need many repairs and maintenance.

I want to live north so I have easier access to "mountains" and more green, the British sea and beaches are the worst ever seen, look Pescara where you were and I know it very well, that is paradise compared to the British sea, so sorry for the others.

In the end, this explains why British go always in other countries to have holidays, especially if the destination is the sea, I have never seen a country travelling so much outside to have fun.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread.

Perhaps you need to adjust your expectations and understand what compromise means? I would love to have a London salary, North of England property prices, Mediterranean beaches and climate but of course that does not exist. You have decided (so far) that London salary is the most important thing to you and now you are acting like a spoilt toddler because you can’t have everything else. 

Rocksolid

steve866 said:

Rocksolid said:

Jamaicanmelaff said:

Rocksolid said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I think you'd be better off buying one of the much better constructed homes in your native Italy to let out whilst you continue renting near (and yes 50 miles outside is still near) London. 

These were built with sand from the sea and plain iron, not sure if you get the magnitude, that was due to deep illegal activities behind, we don't build like that... The other buildings and house didn't get any damage.

My house from 1956 had no impact from it, neither the print had cracks, like new... And it's built just with good foundations and real bricks, not the new cheap ones. (to be honest we made also reinforcement later to feel safe re-doing the main wall)

Anyway, that earthquake was 6.5 under only 19km, it was hell...

Same in 2016, just lighter, the houses that fell down were just the new ones rebuilt from cool companies, again, not respecting any regulation, I hope you get the difference.

Do you recall something like this in UK?

But for how much the houses are light here, (from another point of view cheap quality), I have the sensation that they may survive to such earthquake, not sure if they will be livable inside later...

I was studying abroad in Pescara at that time and I’ll never forget how strong that earthquake felt there and the absolute carnage afterwards, I can’t imagine how bad it actually was in L’Aquila or how awful things were there.

As others have pointed out, your main issue is location. 350k goes a hell of a lot further in other parts of the UK than it does anywhere near London. I don’t like the quality of new builds personally either and doubt many would withstand an earthquake like that, but there are plenty of older solid houses around with nice thick walls
in places you don’t need a high salary to buy - mine is a 150 year old 123 m2 4 bed detached with stone walls about as thick as the length of my forearm and cost around 50% of what you’re paying for yours. You can get a 6 bed detached not too far from town or a 4 bed detached a short walk from the beach in my area for your budget. 

I wish the others here knew what an earthquake like that was.

Where the hell is that? You mean around south London?

The problem with old houses is that I can't use help to buy and I have to put down too much money, plus you need many repairs and maintenance.

I want to live north so I have easier access to "mountains" and more green, the British sea and beaches are the worst ever seen, look Pescara where you were and I know it very well, that is paradise compared to the British sea, so sorry for the others.

In the end, this explains why British go always in other countries to have holidays, especially if the destination is the sea, I have never seen a country travelling so much outside to have fun.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread.

Perhaps you need to adjust your expectations and understand what compromise means? I would love to have a London salary, North of England property prices, Mediterranean beaches and climate but of course that does not exist. You have decided (so far) that London salary is the most important thing to you and now you are acting like a spoilt toddler because you can’t have everything else. 

Good point, but I've chosen UK for easy immigration and cost of moving, I won't be kicked out from Brexit, and that I love too.

Otherwise I could have gone in Australia.

Btw, do you know that more than  80% are not Britons in London? Just saying, ask yourself why.

powerful_Rogue

Rocksolid said:

steve866 said:

Rocksolid said:

Jamaicanmelaff said:

Rocksolid said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I think you'd be better off buying one of the much better constructed homes in your native Italy to let out whilst you continue renting near (and yes 50 miles outside is still near) London. 

These were built with sand from the sea and plain iron, not sure if you get the magnitude, that was due to deep illegal activities behind, we don't build like that... The other buildings and house didn't get any damage.

My house from 1956 had no impact from it, neither the print had cracks, like new... And it's built just with good foundations and real bricks, not the new cheap ones. (to be honest we made also reinforcement later to feel safe re-doing the main wall)

Anyway, that earthquake was 6.5 under only 19km, it was hell...

Same in 2016, just lighter, the houses that fell down were just the new ones rebuilt from cool companies, again, not respecting any regulation, I hope you get the difference.

Do you recall something like this in UK?

But for how much the houses are light here, (from another point of view cheap quality), I have the sensation that they may survive to such earthquake, not sure if they will be livable inside later...

I was studying abroad in Pescara at that time and I’ll never forget how strong that earthquake felt there and the absolute carnage afterwards, I can’t imagine how bad it actually was in L’Aquila or how awful things were there.

As others have pointed out, your main issue is location. 350k goes a hell of a lot further in other parts of the UK than it does anywhere near London. I don’t like the quality of new builds personally either and doubt many would withstand an earthquake like that, but there are plenty of older solid houses around with nice thick walls
in places you don’t need a high salary to buy - mine is a 150 year old 123 m2 4 bed detached with stone walls about as thick as the length of my forearm and cost around 50% of what you’re paying for yours. You can get a 6 bed detached not too far from town or a 4 bed detached a short walk from the beach in my area for your budget. 

I wish the others here knew what an earthquake like that was.

Where the hell is that? You mean around south London?

The problem with old houses is that I can't use help to buy and I have to put down too much money, plus you need many repairs and maintenance.

I want to live north so I have easier access to "mountains" and more green, the British sea and beaches are the worst ever seen, look Pescara where you were and I know it very well, that is paradise compared to the British sea, so sorry for the others.

In the end, this explains why British go always in other countries to have holidays, especially if the destination is the sea, I have never seen a country travelling so much outside to have fun.

Anyway, that's not the point of this thread.

Perhaps you need to adjust your expectations and understand what compromise means? I would love to have a London salary, North of England property prices, Mediterranean beaches and climate but of course that does not exist. You have decided (so far) that London salary is the most important thing to you and now you are acting like a spoilt toddler because you can’t have everything else. 

Good point, but I've chosen UK for easy immigration and cost of moving, I won't be kicked out from Brexit, and that I love too.

Otherwise I could have gone in Australia.

Btw, do you know that more than  80% are not Britons in London? Just saying, ask yourself why.

I think you've just made that last bit up!