Insolvancy, debt, house prices, etc

It the ones that aren't yet in a mess, and haven't yet got anything to take stock of, who are rushing onto the bandwagon lest they miss it.

Repossessions are up as well but not much which make me wonder if thats another bubble waiting to burst. Maybe the lenders of mortgages are holding back from taking action and if thats the case then it wont last forever and we could see a sudden increase in repossessions. The people who will buy those houses are buy to let people and that will help maintain record house prices instead of letting first time buyers in with a chance. Untill recently i thought affordable housing was government trying to help first time buyers but in fact im sure that landlords buy affordable homes and then rent them out.

Let me help you both get a clue. Look at the affordability of repayments over history.

Looks like you're trying to fit the facts to your opinions to me.

Where's the figures to back that up ?

Eh? based on what ?

Daytona

I did use the word maybe, only time ill tell if we see a surge.

Not based on figures but where we live a lot of affordable housing has gone up and they all get snapped up immediately and then very shortly after completion loads of to let signs go up. Unlikely that first time buyers can afford to move in and a week later want to move and rent it out.

Just my assumption when ive seen developments contested and the developers tend to sell some of thier case on the basis well its affordable housing. In fact planners are saying a certain percentage must be affordable housing. The south east regional plan certainly mentions affordable and i just assumed they meant it to help first time buyers (as well as other buyers of course)

Just out of interest. Have you read the regional plans for your own area? the non elected authoority has lots of powers over masses of areas of land.

Since the mayor took his new powers this year in Greater London, of developments around 10 units and above, around *half* must be affordable, which means handing them over to an approved Housing Association at low cost.

Whether that will result in more or less affordable housing remains to be seen. I can't see it stimulating development, especially since your teachers, firemen, ex-prisoners, policemen, drug addicts etc etc, have to be "pepperpotted" through the development, with "full price" residents paying extra, so that their service charges remain "affordable"...who's going to build or buy new units?

Whether a

Messy business all roun i think. I just read this article about affordable housing.

Plans and actuality are often different and although from what you said they should be handed over to housing associations etc i suspect from what i read locally that developers who want to get a contentios plan approved adds affordable housing to help the application. Developers seem to get thier own way anyway. our council openly acknow;edges that they cant afford to turn down applications because the appeal will be upheld and the council would have to pay the developers appeal costs. The south east regional authority has allocated our area for higher density housing so any plans that increase the number of dwellings will be passed.

If you look at page 30, you see a Draft Section 106 Planning Obligatio . It's a kind of self-certification by the developer that he will adhere to the rules: planning permission is conditional upon the S106 being adhered to.

It would be a brave or foolhardy developer who tried to wriggle out of such a binding obligation, yet the conditions are so stringent I don't see how it would be possible for anyone other than a Housing Association to build anything above 10 units.

Do you have a link to where those areas are? Milton Keynes? Ashford? Thames Gateway?

Are there others?

Try try this link for the south east regional authority and from there it has all the latest details plans and im pretty certain that it covers the areas youve mentioned. Thier plans get approved by prescots office and then local authorities (i believe) have to work within those plans laid down. Once they get approved i think the council must stay within them on the strength that they had the chance to appose plans during the earlier stages. (votes of course get no say) Its interesting that the regional authorities lay down basics like how many car park spaces should be provided and how much space is allowed per car which i never realised. Ive not checked that site lately and i recall it used to be messy finding the details plans (all in pdf format with umpteen pages) but it does get you there.

So how affordable are todays repayments compared with previous years ?

Daytona

I think repayments have always been difficult to afford because many house buyers buy to the absolute limit of what they can afford. (because of the house proices of course) What has steadlily changed is the amount of extra debts taken up in the form of credit cards etc which have been increasingly offered with higher and higher credit limits. re: your comment about fitting facts to opinion. I look at the facts (or at least facts reported in the news etc) and then offer an opinion for discussion. I dont pretend to be an expert but nothing wrong with having an opinion or speculation even it proves to be wrong which obviously is preferable in this case because i dont like to see repossesions or people wallowing in debt. The pity is that we dont see politicians talking about these issues often enough. They have select committees of course but not often seen discussing in main stream reporting. It tends to be left to regulatory bodies and charities etc.

I don't understand why you are speculating about affordability when it's just as easy to publish the current and historic figures for comparison. You're doing a good job of sounding like someone who values speculation higher than reality.

Daytona

Instead of complaining about words why not offer your own original thinking and facts if your so knowledgable? This topic is now closed from my point of view as youve obviously exhausted any points you had. So far youve only argued about wording without offering any facts. Thanks for your input anyway.

Your the one arguing with the facts so I wanted to see if you would take the trouble to rectify that.

How convenient, from your point of view.

Not at all. I was waiting for you to present some facts.

I was waiting for you to present some facts rather than incorrect speculation.

Since you can't be bothered to look them up, and for posterity -

Interest at Base Rate + 1% as a Year % of Earnings

1970 26% 1971 20% 1972 32% 1973 63% 1974 53% 1975 45% 1976 52% 1977 26% 1978 45% 1979 66% 1980 54% 1981 51% 1982 32% 1983 30% 1984 33% 1985 38% 1986 40% 1987 34% 1988 54% 1989 63% 1990 58% 1991 43% 1992 28% 1993 22% 1994 23% 1995 26% 1996 25% 1997 30% 1998 29% 1999 26% 2000 30% 2001 23% 2002 25% 2003 27% 2004 37% 2005 36%

Average 37% Median 33%

Source ODPM, NSO