Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Supamanx

Friary Park

Recommended Posts

£4 - 5,000 in the 1970's?

 

I don't think so.

 

Banks are not protecting themselves from shit investments. If the insurer is willing to take on the risk that they, the banks, want to offload or 'insure themselves' then why would they have any concerns?

 

If someone else, as they insist on for a mortgaged property, is taking the risk, what is the shit investment for them? They get their mortgage repayment and their interest and the risk is carried by someone else?

 

I really fail to see what you don't get by this to be honest?

In the mid 70's I'd say they'd be under ten grand.

 

As for the insurer they will rely on policy clauses to restrict liability (has to be in good repair, excesses for subsidence, or other known defects, repairs excluded damages only, no betterment etc) whereas the bank own the house and if you don't pay your mortgage its them that has to sell it to someone else for at least what you owed.

 

People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think these are a good longterm bet. If the banks won't take the risk why would you when there's so much other housing stock around that they will lend on? The one thing this Island isn't short of is housing stock. These houses are now going for prices that look cheap because they are not a good long term bet. Do people really need a bank to tell them that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in my previous post, if there was an intrusive survey and no faults found, the insurer fully informed and they have accepted the risk with full disclosure, why would or should the lender have an issue with lending?

 

No information was revealed about which original bank stated that they were not prepared or willing to lend on these properties or any specific reason why. It would appear that because one lender has chosen this route that the others have subsequently jumped on the bandwagon without actually considering all of the circumstances or actual reasons for withholding lending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in my previous post, if there was an intrusive survey and no faults found, the insurer fully informed and they have accepted the risk with full disclosure, why would or should the lender have an issue with lending?

 

No information was revealed about which original bank stated that they were not prepared or willing to lend on these properties or any specific reason why. It would appear that because one lender has chosen this route that the others have subsequently jumped on the bandwagon without actually considering all of the circumstances or actual reasons for withholding lending.

The insurers risk is a quantifiable amount - the cost to repair or to fully rebuild in a worst case scenario after a detailed physical survey has been undertaken - and it will still place excesses on potential big costs like subsidence to limit its overall risk.

 

The banks risk is the market risk - that being the resale value at any future point in time (maybe in a fire sale situation) and the best guess of a surveyor on what it might currently be worth if you defaulted next month.

 

The insurers liability is more quantifiable, the banks liabilities are not. I repeat there's too much better quality housing stock around in the Island to be taking the worse re-sale risks into your mortgage portfolio.

Edited by localyokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, if there was an intrusive survey and no faults found, the insurer fully informed and they have accepted the risk with full disclosure, why would or should the lender have an issue with lending?

No information was revealed about which original bank stated that they were not prepared or willing to lend on these properties or any specific reason why. It would appear that because one lender has chosen this route that the others have subsequently jumped on the bandwagon without actually considering all of the circumstances or actual reasons for withholding lending.

The insurers risk is a quantifiable amount - the cost to repair or to fully rebuild in a worst case scenario after a detailed physical survey has been undertaken - and it will still place excesses on potential big costs like subsidence to limit its overall risk.

The banks risk is the market risk - that being the resale value at any future point in time (maybe in a fire sale situation) and the best guess of a surveyor on what it might currently be worth if you defaulted next month.

The insurers liability is more quantifiable, the banks liabilities are not. I repeat there's too much better quality housing stock around in the Island to be taking the worse re-sale risks into your mortgage portfolio.

With all due respect , you're off your fucking trolley. Quantified versus material risk?

 

You give detailed assessment to the insurer. The mortgage company want someone to lay any blame on. You have an intrusive report that says your property is safe and meets current standards.

 

Your scenario suggests that a bank is perfectly within its rights to negotiate a mortgage based on these factors. It doesn't take into account a perfectly independent structural survey, insurers consideration or an independent structural engineers survey or what the purchasers are willing to invest as a capital project.

 

Without specific validation, I find it hard to believe that any of this reporting is anything other than the usual crock 'o shit.

 

For the record, I don't live there or have any personal reason to defend it other than seeing the whole thing as another poorly thought out scare which of course is far too unusual for the IOM...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I agree Manxman, but it begs the question "why single out Friary Park?"

The article refers to a Mr Peter Jordan buying a property on Friary Park. IIRC there was a Peter Jordan posting on here a while ago looking for information on moving to the Island and Friary Park in particular and that plus sloppy journalism equals Friary Park being singled out.

I'd forgotten. Yes he complained about a post, didn't pick up the response, complained to the Chief Minister, who asked the police to investigate and then, when no police action, delivered a diatribe against the forums and moderators.

 

In my response to his complaint/report I said, trying to be helpful, at the end

 

" My dad lived on Friary Park for 25 years. Nice place. His was the corner house on the right as you enter. I planted all the daffodils in the front lawn. Some houses were semi kit wood frame, the early ones to the left, and are approaching end of useful life. The rest are of concrete block construction and suffer from poor insulation capacity and are cold"

 

I'd not heard of the bank, surveyors and estate agents misgivings on 2 January when that was written, but shows I was aware of the limited lifespan of the timber frames. No idea how or when I became aware, but must date from when my father bought in 1974/5

 

As to prices, my fathers traditionally built on a double plot, with 4 bedrooms and double garage and conservatory cost £21,000 in 1975. The wood framed ones were on a half plot, two beds and no garages. Late 60s and early 70s when they were built was time of very high inflation. I'm pretty sure original houses in Friary park were sub £5,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, if there was an intrusive survey and no faults found, the insurer fully informed and they have accepted the risk with full disclosure, why would or should the lender have an issue with lending?

No information was revealed about which original bank stated that they were not prepared or willing to lend on these properties or any specific reason why. It would appear that because one lender has chosen this route that the others have subsequently jumped on the bandwagon without actually considering all of the circumstances or actual reasons for withholding lending.

The insurers risk is a quantifiable amount - the cost to repair or to fully rebuild in a worst case scenario after a detailed physical survey has been undertaken - and it will still place excesses on potential big costs like subsidence to limit its overall risk.

The banks risk is the market risk - that being the resale value at any future point in time (maybe in a fire sale situation) and the best guess of a surveyor on what it might currently be worth if you defaulted next month.

The insurers liability is more quantifiable, the banks liabilities are not. I repeat there's too much better quality housing stock around in the Island to be taking the worse re-sale risks into your mortgage portfolio.

With all due respect , you're off your fucking trolley. Quantified versus material risk?

 

You give detailed assessment to the insurer. The mortgage company want someone to lay any blame on. You have an intrusive report that says your property is safe and meets current standards.

 

Your scenario suggests that a bank is perfectly within its rights to negotiate a mortgage based on these factors. It doesn't take into account a perfectly independent structural survey, insurers consideration or an independent structural engineers survey or what the purchasers are willing to invest as a capital project.

 

Without specific validation, I find it hard to believe that any of this reporting is anything other than the usual crock 'o shit.

 

For the record, I don't live there or have any personal reason to defend it other than seeing the whole thing as another poorly thought out scare which of course is far too unusual for the IOM...!

A surveyors report, or an independent survey only tells a bank what a fair value would be now as security. Not how saleable that property might be in 3, 5 or 10 years time if a default occurs. A bank is entirely within its rights to use its own judgement on the commercial risk of holding a particular property. A surveyor is never going to say that a bank will get its money back. If these have known build defects then quite reasonably a bank might assume these will affect the price at which it might have to offload later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was their to complain about? I lived on Friary Park and it was pretty common knowledge the left of the estate had major issues. No secret, no slander, no unfair inferences, just plain fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this fascinating. The below link gives you an idea of how long different components of a building will last given regular maintenance and, of course, if the building is put together properly. A typical timber frame will last 69 years, a concrete one, 81 years. Not much difference really. So a house built in 1970, of timber frame construction, if properly maintained, has (this year) 25 years life left in it.

 

WWW.COSTMODELLING.COM/DOWNLOADS/BuildingComponentLifeExpectancy.PDF

 

That being the case, unless the bank is expecting some sort of financial issue (e.g. house price collapse, currency collapse, etc.), or the mortgage was for longer than the 25 year life expectancy of the building, I see no reason to decline the mortgage. I think there is something fishy about the whole news item.

 

As far as timber frames are concerned, many other elements of a house last far less time than a timber frame, yet everyone picks on timber frames as being a poor construction method. This is not true. Timber framed buildings are far quicker and easier to maintain, alter and fix that block and many other traditional methods.

 

ETA - it appears the issue is not necessarily with the timber frames, as such, as with other building materials.

Edited by Cambon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only 150 houses on Friary park, approx, and the cam bar mantis wood frames are only about 50 or 60 of those. So the article suggests about 400 homes affected on Island. Where are the rest?

There were probably at least 200 with timber frames built in Port Erin in the seventies, I have no idea if there was any life - span given on them but I think ( know ) the owners would like to know. By timber frame I am assuming they mean those built with a single breeze-block outer course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this just be an excuse for the Banks, who are generally reluctant to lend these days, to curtail and shape the mortgage market to their liking?

 

It's likely that these houses are at the bottom end of the price scale, will appeal to lower income people who may have only a small deposit, perhaps not what the Banks want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could this just be an excuse for the Banks, who are generally reluctant to lend these days, to curtail and shape the mortgage market to their liking?

 

It's likely that these houses are at the bottom end of the price scale, will appeal to lower income people who may have only a small deposit, perhaps not what the Banks want?

 

No - It's genuinely they won't lend on these properties

 

I'm good on another property I've got me eye on to borrow 140,000.

 

But for the friary park they won't lend me higher than (160,000 asking price remember) 94,000 (60% LTV)

 

Edited by Jam_Sandwich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone asked HH formally if their builds have a specific shelf life? I will and let you know. Appreciate it shouldn't be an issue but biggest financial commitment etc blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...