Minor content rant...

ntlbell

ZYX wrote: »

OK to use the example I gave already; I own a house. I have a tracker mortgage rate of 1.9%. My mortgage has about 15 years to go. If I could now remortgage at 1.9% tracker over 35 years I would certainly do this. If I put this on deposit at 4% (after dirt) that means I earn 2.1% more on my savings. As long as the interest on my savings is higher than my mortgage rate then it makes sense. Once mortgage rates go higher I then I take out my savings use it to pay off some of mortgage and increase my monthly mortgage payments. Whether my house goes up or down in value makes no difference as I own the property whether I have a 20 year mortgage or a 35 year mortgage. (Obviously the savings could be much higher if you use the money to reduce other loans)

That is the whole point of this thread. People make decisions that suit them. Others then dive in without knowing the persons circumstances and basically tell them they are stupid.

but the poster wasn't re-mortgaging he was going to buy a home with a 35yr mortgage?

you do understand how a tracker works right? if you could FIX at 1.9 you might be on to something.

so he's using the money to buy the property not savings!

ZYX

ntlbell wrote: »

but the poster wasn't re-mortgaging he was going to buy a home with a 35yr mortgage?



so he's using the money to buy the property not savings!

But ntlbell you do not know the circumstances. He could have the deal of the century. Maybe he has managed to get 99% off the asking price, you don't know. Maybe in his situation a 35 year mortgage makes perfect sense (as it would for me), you don't know. maybe this is the greatest house in the entire world and will never be on sale again, you don't know. That is what this thread is about people like you barge in with advice without knowing the persons circumstances.

ntlbell wrote: »

you do understand how a tracker works right? if you could FIX at 1.9 you might be on to something.

Well clearly you don't. If I fixed I couldn't pay off the mortgage any earlier if I wanted to,if savings rates dropped - without paying penalties.

bangersandmash

ZYX wrote: »

OK to use the example I gave already; I own a house. I have a tracker mortgage rate of 1.9%. My mortgage has about 15 years to go. If I could now remortgage at 1.9% tracker over 35 years I would certainly do this. If I put this on deposit at 4% (after dirt) that means I earn 2.1% more on my savings. As long as the interest on my savings is higher than my mortgage rate then it makes sense. Once mortgage rates go higher I then I take out my savings use it to pay off some of mortgage and increase my monthly mortgage payments. Whether my house goes up or down in value makes no difference as I own the property whether I have a 20 year mortgage or a 35 year mortgage. (Obviously the savings could be much higher if you use the money to reduce other loans)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example seems to rely on a combination of:

• The availability of a competitive tracker mortgage now - no sign of them coming back, realistically these were an artefact of the boom.
• ECB rates remaining at an all-time low - many would say that rates will rise in the short-medium term as the rest of the Eurozone recovers ahead of Ireland.
• The availability of a good fixed lump sum deposit rate now, giving 4% after DIRT - there's not too many of those about and you'll need to lock-in for a fairly long term. There's no guarantee of what deposit rates will be available or what the DIRT rate will be after that term expires.
• The assumption that nothing unexpected or exceptional will happen in the Irish banking sector during the foreseeable future.

In essence you seem to be proposing a bet that lump sum deposit rates will beat mortgage interest rates over the medium term, based on unavailable rates for both.

ntlbell

ZYX wrote: »

But ntlbell you do not know the circumstances. He could have the deal of the century. Maybe he has managed to get 99% off the asking price, you don't know. Maybe in his situation a 35 year mortgage makes perfect sense (as it would for me), you don't know. maybe this is the greatest house in the entire world and will never be on sale again, you don't know. That is what this thread is about people like you barge in with advice without knowing the persons circumstances.



Well clearly you don't. If I fixed I couldn't pay off the mortgage any earlier if I wanted to,if savings rates dropped - without paying penalties.

your talking to me like i told him not to buy, i didn't tell him to do anything so i don't know what your rabbiting on about.

and if you don't fix it won't do you any good as interest rates have nowhere to go but up so you wouldn't get your 1.x over 35 years?

christ.

gurramok

New trackers are dead.

I'm sure ZYX would give plenty of advice to the Var/Fixed mortgage holders here on where to obtain them?

20goto10

ntlbell wrote: »

and if you don't fix it won't do you any good as interest rates have nowhere to go but up so you wouldn't get your 1.x over 35 years?

Not great advice either. People who are on tracker mortgages should think long and had about going fixed. For example lets say interest rates go nowhere for a year and then only start to increase in small increments over a long period. Then at the end of it all you'll be pushed into a higher standard variable or in some cases you won't even be able to get that and you'll be pushed into an LTV rate (you will be offered whichever is the highest). Ask yourself what is the gain at the end of the mortgage term. Tracker is the way to go imo. After all, the banks have stopped offering them for a reason. Whats bad for the banks is good for the consumer. And what the banks want is for everyone to go fixed as soon as possible to clear all their tracker mortgages off the books.

ntlbell

20goto10 wrote: »

Not great advice either. People who are on tracker mortgages should think long and had about going fixed. For example lets say interest rates go nowhere for a year and then only start to increase in small increments over a long period. Then at the end of it all you'll be pushed into a higher standard variable or in some cases you won't even be able to get that and you'll be pushed into an LTV rate (you will be offered whichever is the highest). Ask yourself what is the gain at the end of the mortgage term. Tracker is the way to go imo. After all, the banks have stopped offering them for a reason. Whats bad for the banks is good for the consumer. And what the banks want is for everyone to go fixed as soon as possible to clear all their tracker mortgages off the books.

I wasn't given anyone advice.

I'm pointing out how this raping banks by getting loans off them to put it into houses and make a killing on magic non exisiting rates is a false economy.

so unless you want to discuss what i was discussing don't quote me.

20goto10

ntlbell wrote: »

I wasn't given anyone advice.

It's there in print for everyone to read :rolleyes: I didn't say you were directing it at anyone in particular.

ntlbell

20goto10 wrote: »

It's there in print for everyone to read :rolleyes: I didn't say you were directing it at anyone in particular.

I'm pointing out how this raping banks by getting loans off them to put it into houses and make a killing on magic non exisiting rates is a false economy.

so unless you want to discuss what i was discussing don't quote me.

20goto10

ntlbell wrote: »

so unless you want to discuss what i was discussing don't quote me.

There we go again with the bad advice :rolleyes:

ntlbell

20goto10 wrote: »

There we go again with the bad advice :rolleyes:

i can do it too look :rolleyes:

El Stuntman

ah leave ntl alone lads, he's a busy man what with single-handedly 'talking down the market', 'eroding confidence' and 'spreading negativity'

the poor fella is wrecked so he is

20goto10

El Stuntman wrote: »

ah leave ntl alone lads, he's a busy man what with single-handedly 'talking down the market', 'eroding confidence' and 'spreading negativity'

the poor fella is wrecked so he is

I'm purely refuting the posts...nothing more.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion that the bad advice given on here has any direct impact on the market. But as the OP suggests, its just a god awful forum to come to if you're looking for an opinion other than you're a gob****e for even consdering to buy.

El Stuntman

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm purely refuting the posts...nothing more.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion that the bad advice given on here has any direct impact on the market. But as the OP suggests, its just a god awful forum to come to if you're looking for an opinion other than you're a gob****e for even consdering to buy.

I think you are twisting the facts to suit your own opinions

I'm a property owner and so is ntlbell. I've seen him post dozens of times that if you meet the following conditions, then buying now is the right option and you should go for it:

- you intend to live in your chosen gaff for the next 10 years or more

- you have stress-tested your mortgage repayments against multiple rate rise scenarios

- you are paying out no more than 30% of disposable income in mortgage repayments

- you can comfortably survive a change in personal circumstances (unemployment, staying at home to have kids etc)

- your mortgage term is 25 years or less

the problem is that most people who post in here don't meet these eminently sensible criteria

NewFrockTuesday

El Stuntman wrote: »

I think you are twisting the facts to suit your own opinions

I'm a property owner and so is ntlbell. I've seen him post dozens of times that if you meet the following conditions, then buying now is the right option and you should go for it:

- you intend to live in your chosen gaff for the next 10 years or more

- you have stress-tested your mortgage repayments against multiple rate rise scenarios

- you are paying out no more than 30% of disposable income in mortgage repayments

- you can comfortably survive a change in personal circumstances (unemployment, staying at home to have kids etc)

- your mortgage term is 25 years or less

the problem is that most people who post in here don't meet these eminently sensible criteria

I dont think there are many people who earn enough to have just 30% of dis income going on their mortgage. Those conditions are very very cushty and I dont know many people now who would be able to buy like that. Most buyers from the mid noughties on

More realistic is I think nearer 50% of net income out on mortgage

30 year term on loan

Savings scrapped through stamp duty and diposit and furnishings

I agree re the ten years and stress testing though. I was so naieve when I bought my first house that it didnt nter my head! I was younger and aloooot more foolish...and more brave. Now you'll take money from my tihtly clenched fist with a very good reason



I think the heat is making folk grouchier than normal!

ntlbell

Deepsense wrote: »

I dont think there are many people who earn enough to have just 30% of dis income going on their mortgage. Those conditions are very very cushty and I dont know many people now who would be able to buy like that. Most buyers from the mid noughties on

this would suggest that housing is over priced?

Deepsense wrote: »

More realistic is I think nearer 50% of net income out on mortgage

It might be realistic based on peak prices but I wouldn't work the hours I work to spend half my hard earned wages on a roof I want to lead a comfortable life also, if someone is happy to spend 50% of their wages then fair play to them.

ntlbell

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm purely refuting the posts...nothing more.

I don't think anyone is under any illusion that the bad advice given on here has any direct impact on the market. But as the OP suggests, its just a god awful forum to come to if you're looking for an opinion other than you're a gob****e for even consdering to buy.

No, you're not I never _ever_ said people should go for a fixed mortgage.

I was pointing out if you could borrow 300k at fixed 1.5 for 30 years and put it into a high interest account and make money and pay back the 300k when ever you feel like we would be all at it!

my point was you can't borrow the 300k and put it into the bank if your borrowing the money to buy the home you have to buy the home.

if that's now your asset is decreasing at roughly 30k a year, your paying a low rate of interest on a huge figure 300k

if you go interest only and put the "capital" payments into a high interest account your paid interest on a much smaller sum, if it's a tracker that rate can increase anytime

if you can tell us how to do the same in the current climate

for the 3rd time

where do i sign up.

if you're not talking about the above STFU?

ZYX

bangersandmash wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example seems to rely on a combination of:

• The availability of a competitive tracker mortgage now - no sign of them coming back, realistically these were an artefact of the boom.
• ECB rates remaining at an all-time low - many would say that rates will rise in the short-medium term as the rest of the Eurozone recovers ahead of Ireland.
• The availability of a good fixed lump sum deposit rate now, giving 4% after DIRT - there's not too many of those about and you'll need to lock-in for a fairly long term. There's no guarantee of what deposit rates will be available or what the DIRT rate will be after that term expires.
• The assumption that nothing unexpected or exceptional will happen in the Irish banking sector during the foreseeable future.

In essence you seem to be proposing a bet that lump sum deposit rates will beat mortgage interest rates over the medium term, based on unavailable rates for both.

Well I will correct you, you are wrong. If the interest rate on the mortgage you are paying is less than the interest you can earn in a savings account, then it makes sense to pay extra money into the savings account rather than paying it into your mortgage. It does not matter how long this situation lasts for. It doesn't matter if it is a tracker rate or variable rate (obviously it is more difficult if you are on a fixed rate) It could be for 1 day or it could be 35 years but, as long as it lasts you are saving money. Obviously the longer it lasts the more you save. You only do this as long as it makes sense. If interest rates on your savings are less than the mortgage then pay off the mortgage.

Perhaps I should start by explaining what a 35 year mortgage is. It is a mortgage on which you agree to make regular payments to pay it off over a maximum period of 35 years. You can pay it off over 20 years if you want to, unlike a 20 year mortgage which you cannot pay off over 35 years. It means you are more in control of your repayments. For many people it makes a lot of sense. I am not saying it is for everyone but many people who go for longer term mortgages are making decisions based on their own circumstances.

ZYX

El Stuntman wrote: »

- you intend to live in your chosen gaff for the next 10 years or more


- you are paying out no more than 30% of disposable income in mortgage repayments

All depends on situation. Someone earning 1 million a year may well be able to spend 90% of their disposable income on their prooperty and still live comfortably, conversly someone on 10,000 would struggle to spend 15% on their home.

El Stuntman wrote: »

- your mortgage term is 25 years or less

the problem is that most people who post in here don't meet these eminently sensible criteria

Longer terms suit some people. The problem is many on this site have learned your "rules" and think they apply to everyone. They don't. Get to know a persons circumstances first and then offer advice.

johnnyskeleton

Deepsense wrote: »

Ive noticed a vibe in here that is manifesting itself more and more frequently - "anyone who wants to buy a house/flat is an idiot and dont buy and here are a hundred reasons why". Im getting tired of every question ending with the same statements. No matter what question is posed the "dont buy you fool" brigade come out in force. I understand that 99% of the time it is intended to be helpful, but lately its really all I see when anyone mentions that they want to buy. They have made the decision, need some advice and that advice is dispensed with a swift backhander of “Youre an eejit” comments.

While I can't speak for other posters, my advice and the advice of most others tends to be:

1) look at all the factors involved, from the cost of finance to the likely movement in the market and all the hidden costs of buying.

2) work out for yourself what the actual costs of buying v. renting are

3) decide on a personal level whether buying or not buying is worth the potential loss or gain from buying.

If people heed my suggestions and still decide to buy, at least they have looked at all the relevant factors. As it happens in most situations, if they do work out the above, it tends to indicate that they shouldn't buy.

I don't like being branded as being in the "dont buy you fool" brigade as that implies some ideological view on my part. However, if you interpret my advice as being a simple "don't buy" mantra, then it's a convenient way for you to ignore what I say, and I think that's unfortunate.

ntlbell

ZYX wrote: »

All depends on situation. Someone earning 1 million a year may well be able to spend 90% of their disposable income on their prooperty and still live comfortably, conversly someone on 10,000 would struggle to spend 15% on their home.



Longer terms suit some people. The problem is many on this site have learned your "rules" and think they apply to everyone. They don't. Get to know a persons circumstances first and then offer advice.

I think we've yet to have someone looking for advice earning a million a year.

but should one come along and declare it i'll make sure to adjust.

9 times out of 10 people are are avg earners buying avg home's

ntlbell

ZYX wrote: »

Well I will correct you, you are wrong. If the interest rate on the mortgage you are paying is less than the interest you can earn in a savings account, then it makes sense to pay extra money into the savings account rather than paying it into your mortgage. It does not matter how long this situation lasts for. It doesn't matter if it is a tracker rate or variable rate (obviously it is more difficult if you are on a fixed rate) It could be for 1 day or it could be 35 years but, as long as it lasts you are saving money. Obviously the longer it lasts the more you save. You only do this as long as it makes sense. If interest rates on your savings are less than the mortgage then pay off the mortgage.

Perhaps I should start by explaining what a 35 year mortgage is. It is a mortgage on which you agree to make regular payments to pay it off over a maximum period of 35 years. You can pay it off over 20 years if you want to, unlike a 20 year mortgage which you cannot pay off over 35 years. It means you are more in control of your repayments. For many people it makes a lot of sense. I am not saying it is for everyone but many people who go for longer term mortgages are making decisions based on their own circumstances.

but if you put the situation _today_

would it not be better to rent and put all the savings into a high interest account watch the house you want to buy fall by 10% year on year

when it comes to buy put a huge deposit it off take a much smaller mortgage over a shorter term?

as i said if your asset is dropping 30k a year i don't see the benifit in making that small saving having the capital in the bank when you could be just not paying any interest AND earning the interest on the capital?

not to mention saving on insurance and all the other exspesnses that come with a home?

bangersandmash

ZYX wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it is a tracker rate or variable rate (obviously it is more difficult if you are on a fixed rate) It could be for 1 day or it could be 35 years but, as long as it lasts you are saving money. Obviously the longer it lasts the more you save. You only do this as long as it makes sense. If interest rates on your savings are less than the mortgage then pay off the mortgage.

Thank you for dispensing such a pointless lesson in such a glib fashion.

Firstly I pointed out that the mortgage and savings rates described in your hypothetical scenario are unlikely. Secondly the duration of your "gain" period is rather important. In 1 day will the difference in interest have been enough to compensate for a fall in property value (meaningless? really?) and the breakage fees + possible lost interest for breaking your fixed term deposit account to pay off your mortgage?

I was originally going to post agreeing with the OP that there's a time and place for the "do not buy" posts, and many threads don't warrant them. But considering how you have managed to hijack this thread to post your own misinformation, it's no wonder the likes of Ntlbell have to repeatedly post to counter such nonsense.

DJDC

Ntlbell I admire your work at educating the innumerate masses but its a pointless quest which will only lead in frustration. Financial acumen and basic numeracy is a skill built up from a relatively young age and not something you can teach an adult well. As this thread shows some people just dont understand the concept of saving net €100k+ due to the Largan fall-out.

These people are there to be taken advantage of and the captalist system in which we live does in every sense of word. Every good broker/salesman makes their fortunes selling these people cars, houses, carpets, kitchen appliances...you name it. I leave you with the famous quote that certainly applies here:

“If you're playing a poker game and you look around the table and and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.”

ZYX

bangersandmash wrote: »

Firstly I pointed out that the mortgage and savings rates described in your hypothetical scenario are unlikely.

As I said these interest rates are real and are based on my current situation. It is simply to make the point that the constant mantra here of "if you go for a 35 year mortgage you are an idiot". My point is that is not true. Thousands of people in this country have 35 year mortgages paying a low rate tracker on it. But, if anyone says they have a 35 year mortgage everyone pops up to say they were stupid to ever go for it without ever knowing the persons situation.

bangersandmash wrote: »

Secondly the duration of your "gain" period is rather important. In 1 day will the difference in interest have been enough to compensate for a fall in property value (meaningless? really?) and the breakage fees + possible lost interest for breaking your fixed term deposit account to pay off your mortgage?

My point about a fall in property value is taken out of context. If your property is going to fall in value it does not matter what kind of mortgage you have. No matter if it is a 20 year mortgage or a 40 year mortagge it will not effect the amount your property falls

bangersandmash wrote: »

I was originally going to post agreeing with the OP that there's a time and place for the "do not buy" posts, and many threads don't warrant them. But considering how you have managed to hijack this thread to post your own misinformation, it's no wonder the likes of Ntlbell have to repeatedly post to counter such nonsense.

The reason for not posting "do not buy" is not that you might offend the poster, it is that in most cases you do not know the property and therefore cannot possibly comment.
Some people are buying property now that will go up in value over next couple of years. Others are buying property that will be more or less worthless. The thing is you cannot possible say which is which unless you know what the property is, where it is and how much is paid for it. However the same people crop up time and again and without knowing anything about the price say "don't buy it will fall in value" simply because they believe the average price will fall.

Anyone says they are going for a 35 year mortgage automatically becomes an idiot.

Some people are getting homes for less than it would cost to rent similar but immediately the same gang come on saying they are lying and that couldn't possibly happen

Whenever anyone says they are going to bid on a house, without even knowing the first thing about the house or the value of it, the same people jump in "offer 20% less", "no way, I'd offer 50% less"

Estate agents come on here and give their experiences and immediately they are branded as liars unless they say no property at all is selling.

All I am saying is people should ask a few questions of posters before they jump in with "you are an idiot". Take a look at johnnyskeltons post. That type of advice is very helpful.

20goto10

A couple of points:

1. You don't know peoples personal circumstances. Your personal situation does not apply to everyone.

2. You don't know what home they are buying. I have family who have bought an awful home for an awful price. I totally agree that they were very stupid. I also have friends who have bought a beautiful home at a very nice price. It is in fact everything they have ever wanted in a home and if you could walk into that home and see how they live the word "idiot" would be far from your mind. Now I don't know their financial situation but they look just fine to me. Still going on holidays, still buying nice stuff and seem to be generally stress free.

3. You do not get to decide that 25 years should be the maximum mortgage. Again its down to personal circumstances.

4. Any loss/gain in the value of a home can only be made at the end of the term. You cannot assess at the start of your mortgage that house prices are going to fall in the short term therefore you are in for a long term loss. Besides that, give me one person who has come to the end of the mortgage who gives a flying sh!t about how much their home is worth or how much they have spent on their mortgage.

5. And finally, the most important point is that buying a home is not about profit. It is not an investment and anyone who talks as if it were have failed to learn any lesson from the past 6/7 years.

gurramok

ZYX wrote: »

As I said these interest rates are real and are based on my current situation. It is simply to make the point that the constant mantra here of "if you go for a 35 year mortgage you are an idiot". My point is that is not true. Thousands of people in this country have 35 year mortgages paying a low rate tracker on it. But, if anyone says they have a 35 year mortgage everyone pops up to say they were stupid to ever go for it without ever knowing the persons situation.

You see, that is the problem. A 35yr mortgage is banded about as 'affordable' when it is not, its a money making machine for the banks.

Yes, some people do overpay per month on a 35yr mortgage to reduce the term but does that not tell you something?

They are still overpaying bridging that gap when compared to a 25yr mortgage hence a 35yr mortgage warrants legit criticism

ZYX wrote: »

Some people are buying property now that will go up in value over next couple of years.

This is nonsense as talking in general terms especially. Where are these magical properties going up in value in a crash?

I have not seen one, enligten me.

ZYX wrote:

Some people are getting homes for less than it would cost to rent similar but immediately the same gang come on saying they are lying and that couldn't possibly happen

That gang are right as you are using historically & temporarily low interest rates where in year 2 or year 6 of the 35yr mortgage the purchaser will be screwed with rates doubling at least.

20goto10 wrote: »

2. You don't know what home they are buying. I have family who have bought an awful home for an awful price. I totally agree that they were very stupid. I also have friends who have bought a beautiful home at a very nice price. It is in fact everything they have ever wanted in a home and if you could walk into that home and see how they live the word "idiot" would be far from your mind. Now I don't know their financial situation but they look just fine to me. Still going on holidays, still buying nice stuff and seem to be generally stress free.

There is a thing called credit, we have the highest personal debt in the world, they may or may not be in this group but the risk is high.

3. You do not get to decide that 25 years should be the maximum mortgage. Again its down to personal circumstances.

Again, you are supporting the banks by saying this, are you a banker?

5. And finally, the most important point is that buying a home is not about profit. It is not an investment and anyone who talks as if it were have failed to learn any lesson from the past 6/7 years.

Tell that to the 40% of investors who bought during the bubble. Also throw in those homeowners who 'must get on the ladder at all costs' to sell later at a profit(that equity thing) who are now in serious negative equity.
(especially those stuck in apts and houses in commuter towns)

ntlbell

I find it very amusing that people ranting about the "don't buy brigade" are in this thread proving exactly why the same people have to keep correcting them thread after thread.

There must be a good few bankers and EA's in this thread with a few bitter home owners.

20goto10

gurramok wrote: »

Again, you are supporting the banks by saying this, are you a banker?

A 10 year mortgage is better than a 25 year mortgage. A 5 year mortgage is better than a 10 year mortgage. A 25 year mortgage is better than a 35 year mortgage. Where do you get 25 years is good from? Because thats how it used to be in 1984?

gurramok wrote: »

Tell that to the 40% of investors who bought during the bubble. Also throw in those homeowners who 'must get on the ladder at all costs' to sell later at a profit(that equity thing) who are now in serious negative equity.
(especially those stuck in apts and houses in commuter towns)

What makes you think they are "stuck". They may be simply happily living their lives. As for the "tell that to the people who got stung" argument, well you can say that about just about everything. People get killed crossing the road, therefore nobody should cross the road and anyone who does is an idiot who is going to get run over. It's simply not an argument. You're taking someone elses situation and applying it to everyone. you're not only doing that, you're taking someone elses negative situation and applying it to everyone. I could just as easily take a positive situation and apply it to everyone. Therefore anyone who doesn't buy is an idiot. My point being, there are more and more positive stories out there now that prices have corrected themselves. I know there is more correction to come but it really doesn't matter in the grander scheme of things. I actually feel sorry for someone who cannot see past the dollar signs in a situation as important as buying a home. It's a factor, not the factor.

ntlbell

20goto10 wrote: »

What makes you think they are "stuck".

Because they're on pat kenny/joe duffy/anyone who will listen moaning about it? you can't sit down in a pub without hearing some poor unfortunate's tales of woe is me about their 1bed shoe box dropping 150k and they are STUCK there for the rest of their lives as they have no way of paying back that sort of money to get out.

come on, stop clutching at straws.

people jumped on the "ladder" thinking it was the first step to buying a bigger home yes there might be a few who are happy in the 1 bed have no intentions of getting married or having a familiy or been able to go asleep at night without lsitening to the neigbours snoring but these are a very small MINIORITY

the MAJORITY are stuck and have no way out.