How far will house prices fall [volume 4]
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What consumer protection would mean that in this contract dispute (where there is no inconsistency in the terms) the banks would behave differently?If a contract says you can adjust the spread then that's it - consumer or commercial, no?
I still think you are muddling commercial vs. consumer in order to maintain the anti-BTL rhetoric! (Which I am enjoying now I understand the issue...)
And while I am sure it's fair to say that YOU would have given legal advice that would have protected these BTLers - and IANAL - but I wouldn't be surprised for OTHER solicitors to have given the opposite advice.
If the issue was that black and white then the BTLers have received some TERRIBLE advice to have taken it this far through the courts!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I didn't realise that the leeway was so different, thanks for that.Nevertheless it still seems odd to me that BTLing is considered so different from say investing in an ISA or SIPP or whatever.
So while it is obviously on the business terms you point out above, to have such misleading terms as it does is asking quite a lot.
For example, there were plenty of SMEs caught with some horrendous interest rate swap products who clearly had no idea what they were buying and were given some sort of mis-selling respite IIRC.
So it seems clear to me that while the law has this consumer/commercial distinction you are talking about you can't still sell complicated and egregious financial products to any old "business man" - can you?
walm said:
For example, there were plenty of SMEs caught with some horrendous interest rate swap products who clearly had no idea what they were buying and were given some sort of mis-selling respite IIRC.
I have no time for PPI parasites and the like, but IRHP misselling was somewhat different. Apart from them being a far more complex product than a mortgage, they were in a lot cases, sold in a rather duplicitous manner, and to enterprises that should never have considered them. The banks were not innocent of a 'nudge nudge' approach which made it clear, if not overt, that the funding applied for was predicated on also taking at a hedge - something that they were explicitly not allowed to do. Potential costs and break options were obfuscated or simply lied about.
People should, of course have taken better advice though.
It was a poor show all round.
walm said:
Nevertheless it still seems odd to me that BTLing is considered so different from say investing in an ISA or SIPP or whatever.
It would be very unlikely that someone would take on a financial product from a bamk to invest in an ISA or SIPP though.With a standard mortgage you take out a retail mortgage product. BTL mortgages are separate and different products- you can't use the mortgage being advertised on the telly by Jessica Ennis for a BTL.
One is advertised as "buy yourself a home to live in" and the other is "invest in property".
princeperch said:
It sure is interesting and thanks for the link, but the subtitle "How did the property market get so unfair?" is out of place; markets move and their movements will be seen in different lights by different people. Losers will think it's unfair. Oil above $100 per barrel could be seen as unfair to petrol/diesel buyers (yes the tax is worse) while a price below $50 could be seen as unfair to some oil company employees who either lost their jobs already or see them at risk.The prominent unfairness sobbing was presumably needed to get published by The Guardian. Nice move by the author.
turbobloke said:
The prominent unfairness sobbing was presumably needed to get published by The Guardian. Nice move by the author.
Indeed - name checked Thatcher as the cause of the housing crisis but didn't mention that the bulk of the house price boom occurred 1997-2002...Thatcher Box ticked, therefore published in Guardian.
okgo said:
i just know we'll be looking back on somewhere currently grim in 20 years saying the same thing when a flat in Elephant sells for a mint.
i can imagine it keeping track with inflation, but this assumption that we will see the same metoric rise we have over the last 20 in the next 20 is pretty wrong me thinks. historically its tracked wages, last 5 years it hasnt. to me that means it will correct back to wages
z4RRSchris99 said:
okgo said:
i just know we'll be looking back on somewhere currently grim in 20 years saying the same thing when a flat in Elephant sells for a mint.
i can imagine it keeping track with inflation, but this assumption that we will see the same metoric rise we have over the last 20 in the next 20 is pretty wrong me thinks. historically its tracked wages, last 5 years it hasnt. to me that means it will correct back to wages
z4RRSchris99 said:
i can imagine it keeping track with inflation, but this assumption that we will see the same metoric rise we have over the last 20 in the next 20 is pretty wrong me thinks.
historically its tracked wages, last 5 years it hasnt. to me that means it will correct back to wages
Yeh, I was just thinking that its probably undervalued as a place as its such a dump, being central etc...historically its tracked wages, last 5 years it hasnt. to me that means it will correct back to wages
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff