A risk too far?

[GrahamB]

I feel your pain Tom - if i understand the matter correctly - you want to leverage in additional funding to buy your dream home, continue to build your property investment portfolio, capitalise on the strong rental market, squeeze as much value / profit as you can out of your investments - while ensuring you pay the least amount of tax you can get away with. - i think its a good plan, but i can also see how being a property investor and speculator does not fit well with your social conscience - people who buy more homes than they need drive up house prices, trap potential home owners in the rented sector and deprive people of their only 'dream' home. Reading between the lines you seem to be an upstanding chap with fine socialist principals - yet here you are exploiting the housing sector like a true capitalist

This forum is about campervan ownership - if you want to to want to flaunt your good fortune - i suspect there are other more specific websites where you can be as smug as you want

You usually hit the hijack button when you think someone is criticising you and get the admin to 'cancel' them - i suspect you will do the same with this post.

Lets keep things about VW California vans

Ouch! That’s a bit severe isn’t it? After all the OP did post in General Chit Chat, which is defined as for all things not California related?

 

[Amarillo]

I feel your pain Tom - if i understand the matter correctly - you want to leverage in additional funding to buy your dream home, continue to build your property investment portfolio, capitalise on the strong rental market, squeeze as much value / profit as you can out of your investments - while ensuring you pay the least amount of tax you can get away with. - i think its a good plan, but i can also see how being a property investor and speculator does not fit well with your social conscience - people who buy more homes than they need drive up house prices, trap potential home owners in the rented sector and deprive people of their only 'dream' home. Reading between the lines you seem to be an upstanding chap with fine socialist principals - yet here you are exploiting the housing sector like a true capitalist

This forum is about campervan ownership - if you want to to want to flaunt your good fortune - i suspect there are other more specific websites where you can be as smug as you want

You usually hit the hijack button when you think someone is criticising you and get the admin to 'cancel' them - i suspect you will do the same with this post.

Lets keep things about VW California vans

If you find me too irksome, you can make me disappear with a single click.

1. Hover your mouse over my moniker "Amarillo"
2. Drift the mouse to the word "Ignore"
3. Click

 

[davidgmo]

I agree that as a community under Chit Chat we should be allowed to discuss what we like within moral and legal limits. This thread is not about campervans but is about everything else we might want to discuss as a set of members and we do allow free speech in this country so surely this discussion should be allowed?

 

[Perfectos]

Having a bad day @CALI FATE

uncalled for IMO

 

[Amarillo]

Having a bad day @CALI FATE

uncalled for IMO

Also see post #10.

 

[Perfectos]

!

 

[Borris]

Hold on folks, CALIFATE is entitled to offer his opinion. Besides, he has raised some interesting points.

Tom, you must have realised that this thread's subject matter could be contentious? It was always likely to wind someone up. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise if not all comments are positive.

Isn't that part of a healthy debate?

 

[GrahamB]

Hold on folks, CALIFATE is entitled to offer his opinion. Besides, he has raised some interesting points.

Tom, you must have realised that this thread's subject matter could be contentious? It was always likely to wind someone up. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise if not all comments are positive.

Isn't that part of a healthy debate?

It wasn’t just a different view, it came across as a thinly veiled, sarcastic personal/political attack on @Amarillo that had some kind of axe to grind. So no, thats not part of a healthy debate. By comparison, a thread in which I was recently part of a genuinely healthy debate was booted into the Three Cocks for far, far less.

 

[Lightning]

It wasn’t just a different view, it came across as a thinly veiled, sarcastic personal/political attack on @Amarillo that had some kind of axe to grind. So no, thats not part of a healthy debate. By comparison, a thread in which I was recently part of a genuinely healthy debate was booted into the Three Cocks for far, far less.

I was without warning or explanation suspended from participating in that thread for 24 or 48 hours. I suspect it was because I didn’t start it in the three cocks. I didn’t think it was a political subject.

 

[Amarillo]

Hold on folks, CALIFATE is entitled to offer his opinion. Besides, he has raised some interesting points.

Tom, you must have realised that this thread's subject matter could be contentious? It was always likely to wind someone up. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise if not all comments are positive.

Isn't that part of a healthy debate?

When taken in conjunction with his earlier post #10, I think it is reasonable to dismiss his comments as trolling rather than healthy debate.

 

[GrahamB]

I was without warning or explanation suspended from participating in that thread for 24 or 48 hours. I suspect it was because I didn’t start it in the three cocks. I didn’t think it was a political subject.

View attachment 78770

Very strange

 

[Perfectos]

Hold on folks, CALIFATE is entitled to offer his opinion. Besides, he has raised some interesting points.

Tom, you must have realised that this thread's subject matter could be contentious? It was always likely to wind someone up. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise if not all comments are positive.

Isn't that part of a healthy debate?

For once Borris I have to disagree.
it was a personal snipe with no good intentions or debate.
purely venomous toward the Original poster without provocation.
the earlier attempts failed to get a rise so a more direct and less subtle trolling tactic was employed to try and get a rise.
I think my post #79 & 81 would sum it up.
the op knew what he was doing was going to be inflammatory to try and wind it up to get a response from the original poster,
his final comment About summed up the post.

I am all for healthy debate, but that was not healthy or a debate.

 

[OGII]

You know that one factor has been left out of this debate.

Will the dream house have room for chickens?

 

[Wesel]

You know that one factor has been left out of this debate.

Will the dream house have room for chickens?

And a solar panel for the kettle?

 

[Borris]

It wasn’t just a different view, it came across as a thinly veiled, sarcastic personal/political attack on @Amarillo that had some kind of axe to grind. So no, thats not part of a healthy debate. By comparison, a thread in which I was recently part of a genuinely healthy debate was booted into the Three Cocks for far, far less.

Maybe I've got this wrong but the way I see it, dismissing a poster's comments because one doesn't like the way he has phrased them isn't good policy IMO. It diverts the focus onto how he said it and not why? How different people get their point across will obviously vary and sometimes emotion will colour their response. He clearly feels strongly about this subject otherwise why comment at all?

Frankly, I've seen much worse on this forum. It's down to the moderators to decide what is and isn't ok. However, with all the ding dongs we've had in the past on this forum, over all sorts of trivia, if every overly sarcastic or pointed post were dismissed or even removed then the forum would be the worse for it.

 

[GrahamB]

Maybe I've got this wrong but the way I see it, dismissing a poster's comments because one doesn't like the way he has phrased them isn't good policy IMO. It diverts the focus onto how he said it and not why? How different people get their point across will obviously vary and sometimes emotion will colour their response. He clearly feels strongly about this subject otherwise why comment at all?

Frankly, I've seen much worse on this forum. It's down to the moderators to decide what is and isn't ok. However, with all the ding dongs we've had in the past on this forum, over all sorts of trivia, if every overly sarcastic or pointed post were dismissed or even removed then the forum would be the worse for it.

Sorry but I have to disagree. It wasn’t about the subject or his feelings about that or even how he said it. It was a personalised attack, clearly with some history of bad feeling associated and was therefore not ‘healthy debate’. He played the man, not the ball. Can you see that?

 

[Borris]

When taken in conjunction with his earlier post #10, I think it is reasonable to dismiss his comments as trolling rather than healthy debate.

IMO both post's were unnecessarily sarcastic and didn't really add anything of use to the debate but you have to question why did he post? Sorry, but dismissing it as trolling is just too easy. Many people have strong opinions about housing.

It's an interesting thread but given the subject matter, it was never going to be a smooth ride.

 

[Amarillo]

You know that one factor has been left out of this debate.

Will the dream house have room for chickens?

No - I don’t think so. There are a further six houses not fronting the beach with longer gardens that might be able to house chickens. But the really nice houses have gardens which probably are not suitable.

 

[Borris]

Sorry but I have to disagree. It wasn’t about the subject or his feelings about that or even how he said it. It was a personalised attack, clearly with some history of bad feeling associated and was therefore not ‘healthy debate’. He played the man, not the ball. Can you see that?

I can't comment on your assertion of "some history of bad feeling". I hope that isn't true but if it is, I wouldn't want to comment further.

Best leave it here.

 

[Amarillo]

I can't comment on your assertion of "some history of bad feeling". I hope that isn't true but if it is, I wouldn't want to comment further.

Best leave it here.

I think it is connected to my pro European stance before, during and after the referendum. When he posted #10 I was tempted to reply "You won, get over it", but instead hit the "Thread Hijack" button. I suspect that riled him. I really do think that if my posts push his blood pressure up to that level he should hit the single click "ignore" button, and I'll simply disappear.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Wading in... hopefully as a fairly neutral observer*: post #10 came across to me as a pretty crass attempt at a wind-up. And when it didn't get a rise from anyone - apart from Amarillo's own post report which of course we didn't see - a gratuitous attempt at a personal attack then followed in post #75. Everyone will draw their own views on all that but to me FWIW it seemed pretty bad manners and actually rather puerile.

(*Full disclosure: we own a second property.)

 

[Amarillo]

post #10 came across to me as a pretty crass attempt at a wind-up. And when it didn't get a rise from anyone - apart from Amarillo's own post report which of course we didn't see

I don’t think that hitting the “thread hijack” button does anything other than produce a reaction at the bottom of the post, similar to “like”, “love”, “agree”, “disagree”, “welcome”, etc.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think it triggers a report to the moderators, and if I thought it did I would not have hit the button.

 

[vwsween]

No - I don’t think so. There are a further six houses not fronting the beach with longer gardens that might be able to house chickens. But the really nice houses have gardens which probably are not suitable.

Lets face it those houses you really like are a bit too exposed to the wind to expect chickens to be happy there. There is a reason why so little is in those back gardens. The one of a different design that you have in mind as a possible fifth is good for chickens but I doubt you really want it as its position is compromised. So that leaves 4, one of which is unlikely to be available anytime soon, that one next to the possible fifth. Then the one at the end of the row, I would rule out as both front and rear gardens are too small and there may be an issue on privacy as so many people keep their smelly boats right next door. Maybe privacy wont matter to you though. People walking the path at the bottom of the garden but on the other hand that path is very handy leading to sailing clubs in either direction.
So that leaves just 2 properties ideal for you. The risks of you not landing one of these are not financial. They are ill health and/or death and certainly you not being in a position to proceed immediately if an opportunity arises. As this appears to be so important to you, I think you should talk to the owners of those properties.

 

[Velma's Dad]

I don’t think that hitting the “thread hijack” button does anything other than produce a reaction at the bottom of the post, similar to “like”, “love”, “agree”, “disagree”, “welcome”, etc.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think it triggers a report to the moderators, and if I thought it did I would not have hit the button.

Okay in that case my mistake, sorry. My general point was that post #10 didn't get a reaction from anyone, other than from you.

 

[Amarillo]

Lets face it those houses you really like are a bit too exposed to the wind to expect chickens to be happy there. There is a reason why so little is in those back gardens. The one of a different design that you have in mind as a possible fifth is good for chickens but I doubt you really want it as its position is compromised. So that leaves 4, one of which is unlikely to be available anytime soon, that one next to the possible fifth. Then the one at the end of the row, I would rule out as both front and rear gardens are too small and there may be an issue on privacy as so many people keep their smelly boats right next door. Maybe privacy wont matter to you though. People walking the path at the bottom of the garden but on the other hand that path is very handy leading to sailing clubs in either direction.
So that leaves just 2 properties ideal for you. The risks of you not landing one of these are not financial. They are ill health and/or death and certainly you not being in a position to proceed immediately if an opportunity arises. As this appears to be so important to you, I think you should talk to the owners of those properties.

Hey! I’m really impressed that you have worked out the exact location, though I’m unsure you have the possible fifth correct. The one I’m thinking of has two garages and a first floor conservatory.

Of the four, the one next to the dinghy park and the one next to that have small gardens. But hey- who needs a big garden when you have 3700 hectares of biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest literally at the end of the garden, part of a even bigger area of outstanding natural beauty.

I think we can move quickly.

One of the things I have learn from this thread is that we can buy without selling our main home, and get the 3% stamp duty surcharge refunded if we sell our current home within 3 years of buying an additional home.

So the aim can still be to have a mortgage free retirement, and buy without initially selling.

House #4 sold last summer for £930,000. If we bought that as a second home stamp duty would be nearly £65,000 so not an insignificant sum. £28,000 would be refunded if we sold our main home within three years.

So here are some indicative figures of how it could work.

60% mortgage current home for £405,000 (value estimate £675,000)
60% mortgage on new home for £558,000 (value estimate £930,000)
Total borrowing £963,000
Total purchase £995,000 inc SD
£32,000 from savings.

Sell current home £703,000
Borrowing reduced to £260,000

Sell a rental property for £285,000, this could be done before purchase.

So to be ready to go, all we need is an agreement in principle for the two new mortgages. This can be arranged in days.

Early redemption charges on the two new mortgages need watching, but if taken out with a two year fixed rate, after those two years there should not be a early redemption penalty, just the standard charge of ~£30 IIRC.