Housing Shortage

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 hours ago, red750 said:

My credit rating has dropped, not much, but down. The reason? I don't have a mix of secured and unsecured borrowing. The only debt I have is a credit card under $3000. I have paid off my other card. To restore my credit rating, I would need something like a car loan, but as a pensioner, I can't get a loan, not that I need one.

I am not sure how it works in Aus, but you no longer need to have had borrowed something to get a credit rating. The financial institutions and companies that extend you credit (e.g. utilities that bill you in arrears) all send info to the credit rating agencies these days. I wqould be certain it would be the same in Aus.

 

And there are different personal credit ratings agencies as well (well, over here). However, a "service" consolidates the ratings agencies and provides a single score. In each of the agencies, I have 999, but for some reason, the consolidated rating is something like 925 or thereabouts. Other things can affect it such as a company you haven't dealt with for a long time having your old address, and they still submit data on you because you hae an open account. Even the fact you have moved house and have not yet changed electorate you are enrolled in could result in a negative score.

 

Of course, nothing like this has happened to you, so it could be a reflection of relative income v average lending amount, or someting like that. Over here, the agencies have to let you view your account for free and they have to show where your rating has a negative. You can pay something like £5/month and they will alert you of changes to your account, which worked well for me; I goit an asert than a credit search was performed (one that would show on my rating to other borrowers), and it was from GAP or some such fashion/homewares retailer I have not been into for at least 20 years. I called them and sure enough, someone made an application using my identity, but they were using my previous address. The canned the application of course, but also let the ratings agencvies know it was a fraudilent application and to remove it from my credit history.

 

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There was an example of a bank losing in SA about 20 years ago. They had foreclosed on a farm and were selling it to the highest bidder. Unfortunately for the bank, all the bidders were mates of the foreclosed farmer, who got to buy it back real cheap.

Ever try and buy a farm?  They lend you very little of the valuation, quite unlike a city house.

Yes, sometimes the banks do lose on individual transactions and in times of economic stress, their portfolio can take a hit, too. Losses on individual transactions are more often than not related to retail lending, such as personal loans, credit cards, auto loans and residential mortgages where the loan to (collateral) valuation rations are typically higher (e.g. borrowing against 100% of the valuation of the property).  Subprime mortgage lending is an example of a portfolio loss, too, w=here the whole thing went mammaries-up.

 

But, losses actually reasonably rare and usually involved in stressed times or adverse events. The interest that you pay coveres not only the risk-adjusted profit they intend to make off you, but also (in conjunction with other borrowers) the cash and equivalent capital they have to hold to cover estimated losses on their portfolio. In other words, those that remain solvent pay for any losses incurred by lending against those that go insolvent.

 

Another example of privatising the profits and (normally) socialising the losses.

[onetrack]

Here's the basic information as to how credit rating scores are calculated - but it's far from complete. What is also being taken into account with credit ratings now, is how long you take to pay bills - as well as credit card balances.

They also watch your account balances and whether they show a downward trend or not. You can pay off a $2000 credit card in full one month, but if you spend $3000 on the card next month (even if you do pay it off fully when its due), it still registers as increasing indebtedness.

Once again, it's all done with algorithms, no humans are involved, just the people reporting the numbers. Those people (reporting) now even include shire councils (rates) and utility providers, if you're in default on their bills.

 

https://www.creditsavvy.com.au/learn/credit-faqs/how-are-credit-scores-calculated

 

https://www.creditsavvy.com.au/learn/6-things-that-dont-affect-your-credit-score

[red750]

The rating agency that gives my rating is clearscore.com. Here is a screenprint from part of the report.

 

 

I get emails like this every few days, but when I applied, entering "Retired" as Occupation knocked the application on the head.

 

 

 

[old man emu]

What a scam! Telling you that to get something "better" you should go into debt, i.e. borrow money for something the lender says you need, but that you are getting along nicely without. It's like a hair comb salesman offering a great deal on a new comb to a bald man.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't know my credit rating and I don't care, but jerry's idea that you should be told ( without charge )  if you ask is obviously right....  do they do this in Australia?

[onetrack]

Bruce, yes - but you have to register with the credit rating agencies (of which there are only three main ones in Australia - Equifax, illion and Experian), and then log in every time you want to check your rating.

It's a good idea to do so, so you can pick up any fraudulent credit applications where some crim has acquired your personal details, and made a credit application under your name.

All the crims need is your full name, date of birth, address and drivers licence number, and they can lodge a fraudulent application. If the fraudulent application is not picked up, but rejected anyway, this affects your credit rating. Any application for credit adversely affects your credit rating, even if you get rejected.

[old man emu]

38 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Any application for credit adversely affects your credit rating,

Which sounds ridiculous. What happens if you had done your sums and decided it was a better financial decision to lease a car. You submit the application, and as part of the leaser's SOPs, they do a credit check. They find out that you have an extremely high credit rating and hand you the keys to the car. However, because there has been a credit check, you drop a few precious rating points. You haven't done anything wrong, but

 

[onetrack]

In their eyes, you've definitely done something wrong by looking for a credit advance! And of course, if you've taken on a credit advance, that reduces your borrowing ability and also lowering your credit rating. The worst feature is, if you apply for credit and get knocked back, your credit rating suffers because they suspect you're facing financial stress, by simply applying for credit!

 

By far the greatest rort perpetrated by banks however, is their largely agreed interest rate on basic credit cards, of around 14%. Of course, you can also get tempting credit card offers with "rewards" and other enticements, and then find out the interest rate is 20% or 22%!! 

 

I have 2 credit cards from organisations that are not part of the Big Four banking cartel. Note how the Big Four banks have bought up as many smaller banks as possible - but keep their original name - making people think they're dealing with a bank that isn't part of the Big Four - when they actually are.

 

I have a card with Defence Bank, which used to be the Defence Force Credit Union (DEFCREDIT), and a card with CFCU (Community First Credit Union) Bank. Both these organisations are member-owned, so no corporate greed and outrageous salaries to CEO's are involved. Both these cards are unsecured credit cards and their interest rate is 8.99%. What is even better, CFCU allow cash advances at the same rate as the card, so no ripoff as with the Big Four, with their scammy cash advance interest rates that can be as high as 26%.

 

https://communityfirst.com.au/news/safe-and-secure-option#:~:text=Community First is member-owned,service and competitive interest rates.

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by onetrack

[Bruce Tuncks]

There was a 90 y/o pommy woman who always bought a bottle of sherry at the local, once a week.

When the local changed hands , the old girl was asked for "proof she was over 18". She had no photo id, not having a driver's license and she had never had a passport either. The new young girl refused to sell to her and she was backed up by the manager. I don't think this could happen in Aust, well I hope it couldn't. Woke rubbish gone insane, thinks I.( I personally have a driver's license and an expired passport, but I have never had to use them for proof of age, well I hope not.)

[facthunter]

I nearly ALWAYS ask them if I need to show proof that I'm over 18..   Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well I have a theory that facthunter is really a 14 y/o girl who is impersonating a grumpy old pilot.

[facthunter]

Do Ladies come on this site anymore?   Joe COOL was my AKA.    Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

20 hours ago, red750 said:

The rating agency that gives my rating is clearscore.com. Here is a screenprint from part of the report.

 

 

I get emails like this every few days, but when I applied, entering "Retired" as Occupation knocked the application on the head.

 

 

 

 

Hmm. .it works very differently here to Aus, then.

 

Any firm here that offers you goods or services on an arrears basis (such as utilities, but exempot are small service providers, e.g., say a gardner or similar) is a credit provider and has to be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act; and larger ones are also regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Therefore they can contribute to your score -  so one in favour of Australia's consumer and credit laws.

 

Previously, pot having any debt meant not having a credit score, but that changed years ago. The agencies have your bank, credit card, and loan balances now, so they have a profile of yhour credit worthiness out of the blocks.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

41 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There was a 90 y/o pommy woman who always bought a bottle of sherry at the local, once a week.

When the local changed hands , the old girl was asked for "proof she was over 18". She had no photo id, not having a driver's license and she had never had a passport either. The new young girl refused to sell to her and she was backed up by the manager. I don't think this could happen in Aust, well I hope it couldn't. Woke rubbish gone insane, thinks I.( I personally have a driver's license and an expired passport, but I have never had to use them for proof of age, well I hope not.)

I don't know  where in the US this is, but in both California and Pennsylvania, the law requires anyone who purchases alcohol to provide an ID to prove they over over 18. That has been the case since before I have been going there, over 25 years ago. There maay have been a change in  owner of the shop who is not going to risk their licence to trade until they find out the lay of the land.. for example. Yes, it is a stoopid law,...

 

Now, my pet hate - everything that is deemed stoopid is labelled as "woke"... Look up the meaning of woke.. Personally I am happy to be called woke because it means alert to dioscrimination, especially racial. I consider myself alert to all forms of racism. Why would anyone other than racists and bigots not want to be woke? The extreme right have hijacked the word and the press havbe run with it as some form of movement against common sense or something.. And there has been no word to fill the void left, which is one of the tactics used by idealogues to drive the wedge between people.

[red750]

Many properties in our area with sufficient land are having two houses built on the one block.You will recognise the front house in the photo below as one of the houses in my post on page 1 of this topic.

 

[onetrack]

Here in Perth in some suburbs, you can built of lots of 200 sq metres or less. I've actually seen one house built on 120 sq m of land. My suburb is Heritage listed, and up until a few years ago, no subdivision into "battleaxe" blocks was allowed - but the developers won, and blocks can now be subdivided here into 200 sq m lots.

 

But if the original house was built before 1960 (as most were), the original facade of the house must be kept in any redevelopment. This has led to some weird-looking new houses with an old front.

 

We're on 594 sq m. and we could redevelop into 2 lots - but we won't do it, as we like a bit of room. However, the houses are gradually creeping in on us, we got a new house right on our back fence when they battle-axed the block behind us, about 12-15 years ago.

Barney, my neighbour on our left is 92, and I fear that when he's gone (which will be within a couple of years, I suppose), there'll be a massive redevelopment of his block. That will mean his house redeveloped into a new house, and another new house in his backyard, and right on our side fence. The developers only leave enough room to walk between the houses and the fences.

 

On the other side, an old couple moved in about 9 years ago, and I'm sure the old bloke has dementia - and angry dementia at that, too.

We can't get on with them, he's threatened to kill me, and kill other neighbours as well, he's a right old prick with a territorial obsession that makes him abuse people the instant they step on his block.

But I think he'll kick off soon, so who knows what will happen then. It's only a small (2 bedroom) house, so it's ripe for redevelopment.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I saw in Palmerston that they were selling blocks of 150m sq. I laughed at this foolishness till they started doing the same thing at Blakeview, near where I lived in Craigmore. I dunno what the minimum is, but the shed I live in right now would not fit on 150 sq m.

 In Palmerston, there is land at 5cents per m sq from there to Brisbane thru to Adelaide.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

The 150 msq blocks were selling for $150,000.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Jerry, the story was from the UK not the USA.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I equate "woke " with the left-wing loonies who demand, for example, that all land really belongs to the abos. They have a case for some but not all of it. And what really makes me angry is the idea that they are entitled to stop silly whitefellers from rock climbing in their lands. And using whitefeller stuff to traditionally hunt, like using a tinny to get turtles.

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Jerry, the story was from the UK not the USA.

 

Oh.. My bad.. I would have thought that would make the news.. Road fatalities - nah, but deny an old lady her booze and it is a national discrage.

 

Having said that, it is certainly in the tiny minority of cases that this would occur in the UK.. they are far more relaxed than many other countries with respect to alcohol. For instance, without parents, as long as kids from 16 - 17 are eating, they can order beer/wine with their meals. My daugter is 17 an dlooks about 14 - 15, and no one questions her when she has a pint in her hand (yes, I allow it.. not often, and to take away the excitement of doing something wrong... Did it with my son and he doesn't drink now).

 

7 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I equate "woke " with the left-wing loonies who demand, for example, that all land really belongs to the abos. They have a case for some but not all of it. And what really makes me angry is the idea that they are entitled to stop silly whitefellers from rock climbing in their lands. And using whitefeller stuff to traditionally hunt, like using a tinny to get turtles.

I understand, but that is my pooint. The far right, aided by the press have appropriated the term that meant simply alert to discrimination to mean loonies, nutjobs, or idealogues - just like the far right are, too. They have also appropriated other moderate terms such as liberalism to mean more or less fanatical.. There are no words in common parlance now that fill that void which is around centre. Which is how they have siccessfully divided the commuinity. It is an old playbook from the 30s and even prior.

 

I am not a mad left wing nutjob, although I am sure some here think I am. I am veryt pro-moderated capitalism, I believe that people should be given an equal opportunity - that does not mean an equal outcome.. I also believe in reward for achieving things, and for risk as wel. I don't for example, believe in social engineering so that people from poorer backgrounds get favourable treatment, say, for university entrances, but I believe society should invest in levelling up in the formative years so thaty by the time they are adults, they can complete on an equal footing to many privileged families.  It is a pipe-dream; I know.. and sadly not many have the patience for the time to see fruit, not the commitment to make a good job of it.

 

But I am totally anti-discriminative. A person should be judged on themselves and their circumstances. I now have an Indian, Israeli (one injured family member), Iranian, Moroccan (Muslim), three Indians (all Hindu) and three whiteys (2 Brist and myself- 1 christian, other two inc. me, athiest) on my team. No women though, but not of design.. We all get along surprisingly fine and they are known as one of the better delivery teams in our whoe department; I have just been promoted and will be leading a different team of which some of my current team will be joining (I would have them all but not my choice - yet). They have all asked to come to my new team, yet all except the newest have also worked some incredibly long hours to get the job done, so it is not because I give them easy street.

 

Our annual reviews diversity training is a measure of our performance. I take the mandatory training, but never the optional. When my manager quizzed me, my response was that if I need diversity trainihng, then by definition, I discriminate; the only thing I discriminate is against an applicant or employee's ability to do their job and their fit into the team.

 

So, I consider myself woke in its proper meaning. It does not mean I am a loonie or super-left.. There is no other word Iin common parlance that describes it.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

I think that those alleged journalists pumping out current Meeja crap need to be concentrated and educated to research before they write.

 

My daughter and I were talking about the recent protest about illuminating the Opera House with the Israeli colours. It was reported that police arrested a Jewish man who approached the protestors whilst carrying an Israeli flag.

 

What do you understand by the term "to arrest"? I bet you are wrong at Law.

 

What the man did in those circumstances was likely to cause a Breach of the Peace. A “breach of the peace” includes an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person or in his presence his property, or is likely to cause such harm, or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done. MOre than likely it would have been the flag-carrier who would have copped the worst of it. This definition of breach of the peace was expressed in the case of R v Howell [1981] 3 All E.R. 383.

 

The case of State of New South Wales v Bouffler [2017] NSWCA 185 also expressed the meaning of a “breach of the peace” and said that it includes “a wide range of actions and threatened actions that interfere with the ordinary operation of civil society.”

 

It would be reasonable for a Constable to fear that if someone in the crowd snapped, then the flag-carrier could be harmed, or harm someone with the flagpole. Where does the breach of the peace police power come from? The power of the police to arrest a person for committing a breach of the peace comes from the common law of Australia. More specifically section 4 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (NSW) allows for this historical common law power to remain in NSW.

 

How could a Constable act? First by stopping the actions of the man. That is the actual arrest. Measures short of depriving someone of liberty can be sufficient to prevent an imminent breach of peace. For example, this may be by taking a person by the arm and moving them on. The restraining may continue as long as is necessary to prevent the imminent breach of peace, but the citizen must then be released or arrested. Usually the restraining involves either escorting a person out of the immediate area and telling them to piss off and don't come back.

 

People think that if someone is arrested, then they will be charged with an offence. Not so. 'Arrest" simply means to stop. Every time you are pulled over at an RBT site, you have been arrested. Never charged and the "arrest" ends when you have provided a negative breath sample.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree 100% jerry. I reckon that discrimination is unacceptable in any way. Ideally, you would not know or care about the candidate's color etc.

And OME, there was a guy who passed the big picture-windows of my gym wearing a tee shirt emblazoned with the writing " Jesus is a c#nt" He also stole my bike I reckon. Later, I told the cops that his tee shirt was offensive and in breach of the peace and they agreed.

[Marty_d]

24 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I agree 100% jerry. I reckon that discrimination is unacceptable in any way. Ideally, you would not know or care about the candidate's color etc.

And OME, there was a guy who passed the big picture-windows of my gym wearing a tee shirt emblazoned with the writing " Jesus is a c#nt" He also stole my bike I reckon. Later, I told the cops that his tee shirt was offensive and in breach of the peace and they agreed.

Well, it's an offense against English. 

As Jesus died 2000 years ago it should have read "Jesus WAS a c*nt".

[Jerry_Atrick]

He may well have been referring to someone currently alive called Jesus.. Jesus, the amount of people who call me Jesus, before asking me wtf I am doing, makes me think I was named Jesus.