[Archived] Repossesions In Blackburn And Darwen

[JAL]

The Lancashire Telegraphs headline story for today shows the number of repossesions occuring in Blackburn with Darwen over the past three years the stats are:

2005 445 homes were repossesed

2006 562 homes were repossesed

2007 625 homes were repossesed

In total 1632 homes have been repossesed over the past three years, with a small population of around 140,000 i find this quite a staggering amount of homes, in fact it makes me think how could you turn Rovers into a profitable situation when the area seems to be performing so poorly.

[cletus]

I know of one guy who got his house repossessed. He didn`t seem that arsed either, saying the mortgage payments were less than the rent would`ve been on a similar property (it was a nice house), so he was in effect paying less. After a while he stopped paying altogether, got 6months free accomodation, got repossessed, evicted & put straight into a council house......thus avoiding the big queue waiting for council houses (they`ve got kids).

Wierd i know, but the guy actually had it all planned out

[DanLad]

I know of one guy who got his house repossessed. He didn`t seem that arsed either, saying the mortgage payments were less than the rent would`ve been on a similar property (it was a nice house), so he was in effect paying less. After a while he stopped paying altogether, got 6months free accomodation, got repossessed, evicted & put straight into a council house......thus avoiding the big queue waiting for council houses (they`ve got kids).

Wierd i know, but the guy actually had it all planned out

Until the Building Society sell the property at less than market value and go after your friend for the shortfall? There'll be financial penalties in the mortgage, too, won't there?

Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me...

[Ben-2000]

To add another angle on people losing their homes... I work for a Housing Association dealing with rent arrears in Blackburn and Darwen and although the number has dropped there is still a lot of people evicted for this reason and Anti-social behaviour too so if you add the two together the figures for people losing their homes will look even worse Shocking!

[cletus]

Until the Building Society sell the property at less than market value and go after your friend for the shortfall? There'll be financial penalties in the mortgage, too, won't there?

Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me...

I didn`t say it was a good plan Dan

[RoversFanUSA]

Wow its happening over there to? Man were having a large housing problem to. Ours has a lot to do with the way our ass head of a presadent has run things, making the rates on ppls home loans go through the roof and in the end ppl lose there homes. Its happening at an alarming rate. Scary really...

[1864roverite]

In this day and age just how many Building Socs and Banks go after the difference in the two amounts ?

I recently dealt with a fraud where the amount of just over £210,000 in mortgage terms for a house that cost in reality £151,000.

I told THEM of the fraud but THEY couldnt be bothered to assist me.

Now, after it has all been resolved, the fraudster has left the house, has never paid a fee or a monthly mortgage fee and has now lost his house. The penalties he suffered are as follows:

he got evicted and lost his house

a lucky couple purchased the house from the BS for £123,000 cash (house now valued at £202,000).

he does not have to pay any of the deficit or charges incurred by failing to pay his mortgage

he got a conviction for simply evasion of liability of paying his mortgage

the "missing £59k" was never traced and he does not have to pay it back.

Says it all really

[American]

Wow its happening over there to? Man were having a large housing problem to. Ours has a lot to do with the way our ass head of a presadent has run things, making the rates on ppls home loans go through the roof and in the end ppl lose there homes. Its happening at an alarming rate. Scary really...

Actually, rates are fairly low, people are just being irresponsible by getting mortgages for more than they can afford which are now re-setting at rates they can't afford. It was a risk that they took when they got the mortgages, but were too greedy figuring they could live above their means. I knew housing was going down when I saw that over 20% of home sales were as investments. I don't blame anyone except the people who bought more home than they could afford. I love reading the articles about the people who can't afford the mortgages - they always talk about other monthly payments which usually include 2 cars at over $300 per month each. If your finances are that bad, buy a used car instead of a Lexus or Mercedes.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant at Dubya.

[JAL]

The reality is the house prices are way way over the top and are nowhere near in comparison to wages especailly in Blackburn which is the seventeeth poorest region in the UK.

The ratio should always be around 3.5 to 1, anything bigger impacts on individuals social life and creates a lack of spare cash for those individuals.

House prices need to be reset and it has to come from the government, somehow i dont think 'black Jack' and his cronies would have the bottle to disrupt their own cosy comfortable lives at the risk of upsetting people especially those in negative equity or everyone generally involved in the housing market industry.

[American]

Interesting, if not simplistic, opinion piece on foreclosures - http://www.slate.com/id/2185303/ - what it fails to point out is that not all homes in all areas will get new owners.

[philipl]

That reads like one of those cheerfully chatty articles certain American journos produce from time to time about methods of execution.

Just seen that 8% of all American mortgages now could qualify for being foreclosed.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I have just today seen a 3 bedroomed middle-of-the-row TERRACED house advertised for sale in BURNLEY for the princely sume of just 150,000.....a house that would have been worth no more than 70,000 just 5 years ago

The housing market is a flurkin joke and a pish take.

[Rovermatt]

The purchase prices I deal with at work are incredible. A little terraced house will go for no less than 180k in any respectable part of the country. Many people are getting mortgages for as much as 100% of the price.

[broadsword]

100% is nothing, there've been 125% mortgages until recently.

For those of us not yet on the ladder, and not wishing to commit financial hari kari, it's a daunting prospect.

[Cheshireblue]

But what is the alternative? Demand outstrips supply, so prices go up. End of story.

You either put interest rates up, making money more expensive, and so increasing costs and reducing prices, thus reducing the equity in peoples homes and making it impossible for those in the market to move = negative equity and stagnant market. Yes you've stemmed the increase in prices, but you've caused negative equity for millions of home owners and made money so expensive that people can't afford t borrow it.

The alternative is what we have had until now, a steadily increasing housing market with cheap money available for purchasers to get into it. Yes, a firsy time buyer may need to borrow £100,000 to get into the market, but that is about £400 a month on an interest only basis. With the minimum wage about to go upto £5.75 an hour that is about a week and a half's wages for a one income family on minimum wage. Two people earning, or maybe even a lodger to share the rent and it's really not that bad.

There is a lot of scare mongering about the housing market. The simple fact is that nice houses in good areas cost more than crummy ones in grubby areas. It's the same with cars. Better ones just cost more. If you can't afford a Bentley, you buy a fiesta. You don't complain to the government that Bentleys are too expensive do you?

Similarly, if you can't afford the house of your dreams, then buy one you can afford and take it from there.

Until the government allows developers to build enough homes where people want them, not where the government thinks they should build them, you will have this imbalance.

[jim mk2]

Government could help to keep houses prices in check by imposing capital gains tax on homes. Most people see houses as an "investment" and if that is the case houses should be subject to CGT in the same way as any other commodity that has gained in value.

The CGT could be tapered depending on how long you have lived in the house so that there would be no CGT payable if you have lived there say, for 10 - 15 years, but 100 per cent CGT would certainly deter short-term speculators.

Houses should be for living in, not a means of personal wealth creation or saving for retirement.

[broadsword]

If no-one bought a house as an investment, there'd be no rental market. And since not everyone can afford to buy, then where would they live?

I agree that it's simple demand-led inflation, and can't see the supply increasing to meet demand any time soon, but I do think the market has reached the point now where demand will drop off because first-buyers can't afford to enter it.

I'm currently putting together a sizeable deposit. Working on short-term contracts, I don't fancy having to shell out £1300 a month (you don't get much round here for less than 180k, in fact, you might not get anything).

And as for saving for retirement, I really don't fancy putting it into a pension ta, seems more of a gamble than buy-to-let.

[roversmum]

There's been 'garden-grabbing' going on round here, where developers are buying properties with large gardens, demolishing the current property and building several crammed close together in its place. These new properties are not even reasonably priced.

One near-by site currently being constructed looks frightening - there's barely enough room for one car to get between the houses on to the main road, and the development steeply slopes from the main road. I can see all sorts of problems and accidents happening there.

Luckily the council seem to have realised it's not a good idea and have refused several such further developments on the grounds of over-development but appeals and alternative submissions are likely.

[blue phil]

If no-one bought a house as an investment, there'd be no rental market. And since not everyone can afford to buy, then where would they live?

I agree that it's simple demand-led inflation, and can't see the supply increasing to meet demand any time soon, but I do think the market has reached the point now where demand will drop off because first-buyers can't afford to enter it.

I'm currently putting together a sizeable deposit. Working on short-term contracts, I don't fancy having to shell out £1300 a month (you don't get much round here for less than 180k, in fact, you might not get anything).

And as for saving for retirement, I really don't fancy putting it into a pension ta, seems more of a gamble than buy-to-let.

Good points , Bryan ; bricks and mortar are always the best long term investment and why not ? That's the market system - we just have to make the best of it . Property developers would simply invest abroad anyway .

I've an even more radical solution than jim's . Diminish and eventually end the supply and demand gap by curbing immigration to an absolute minimum . We are currently losing well over a hundred thousand emigrants a year (and who can blame them ) so the number of houses would soon become more affordable .

Time to put the future of our own kids before that of the employers of cheap overseas labour .

[jim mk2]

Bricks and mortar are not the best long term investments.

The stock market has beaten every other asset class over the long term. And it's not difficult either : all you have to do is invest in a passive tracker fund that mirrors the performance of the index.

And if you do your research and are willing to take more risk you can find superb actively managed funds. I found one more than 20 years ago and have held it ever since : it's up 6,000 per cent compared to my house's 400 per cent.

[blue phil]

Well each to their own , jimbo .

Personally I've no objection as to where people invest their money .

But if it's fine for the government to take your advice and slap a massive capital gains tax on property investment how would you feel if they did the same with your 6000% gambled on the stock market ?

[jim mk2]

If no-one bought a house as an investment, there'd be no rental market. And since not everyone can afford to buy, then where would they live?

I agree that it's simple demand-led inflation, and can't see the supply increasing to meet demand any time soon, but I do think the market has reached the point now where demand will drop off because first-buyers can't afford to enter it.

Don't follow your logic with your first statement but you are right that first-time buyers can no longer afford to get on the ladder. Two things will happen : either incomes will catch up with house prices or house prices are grossly overvalued and will fall. Guess which is going to happen ?

And as for saving for retirement, I really don't fancy putting it into a pension ta, seems more of a gamble than buy-to-let.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pensions are excellent savings vehicles over the long term and have the added bonus that the government adds to your pot via tax relief.

Houses are a gamble too: there's no guarantee they will rise in value and remember there were periods in the 1970s and 1989 - 97 when they actually fell in value.

[blue phil]

Pensions are excellent savings vehicles over the long term and have the added bonus that the government adds to your pot via tax relief.

THIS ARTICLE explains just how much this government "adds to your pot via tax relief" ....... or rather how much it has detracted .

Stick to the bricks and mortar , Bryan mate ........it's easier to defend against thieves .

[jim mk2]

That article refers to the abolition of tax relief on dividends, which was never justifiable in any case.

Buy your house by all means, but be prepared to see it decline in value over the next 10 years.

Meanwhile if your company has a pension scheme invest in as soon as possible and invest as much as you are allowed. If you don't have a company scheme start a private plan.

And if you have any spare cash set up a monthly savings scheme into a index tracker fund and watch it grow over the years. It's easy and it works.