LondonMix

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > has all the amenities a so > called 'gentrified' wannabe place like ED can only > dream of having. > > Louisa. Such as....

SuzieK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Yes, if your shortfall on childcare for 6 months in total is less than your total enhanced payment, then going with the enhanced payment option should definitely work out financially. I agree a nanny-share or nanny with own-child should work out cheapest. Good luck. > > I think I may just take the enhanced pay and put > any amount above statutory into a pot to cover the > possibility if me not going back.

From the Ofsted report... Like I said, it could only be considered posh by SE London standards. The description some posters gave of it though simply isn't true. The Charter School is slightly larger than average with more boys than girls in all year groups; the school has many more applications than places available. The school was established by parent action in 2000. The vast majority of students live within just over one mile of the school and most walk or cycle to school. The proportion of students eligible for free school meals is in line with the national average. The proportion with learning difficulties and/or disabilities is slightly above the national average, but the proportion of these students with statements of special educational need is high. The school?s intake is from a diverse range of cultural, ethnic and social backgrounds with a significant proportion from disadvantaged circumstances. About half the students are from a wide range of different minority ethnic groups; the proportion with English as an additional language is in line with the national average. The school became a business and enterprise college in September 2005 and was awarded high performing specialist school status in April 2009 with science as a second specialism. The school works with a large number of partners to support the curriculum and other aspects of its work.

More than half of the pupils at Charter are minorities. The number on free meals is in line with the national average and the statement of special needs is higher than average. Its a relatively affluent school perhpas for SE London but its hardly a bastion of white middle class privilege

That?s really annoying. I know for Dulwich Villiage infants the difference between first round and final offer is over 100m typically. I suppose they only way to find out is to contact the schools for the true last distance offer then?.

The booklet is last distance including waiting list I think. The preliminary information provided by the Cllrs on this site earlier this year was before waitlist movements.

Did they say why?

Oh, did the hearing take place already. Wasn't aware of that.

That's true. Distances to Central London are always referenced to Charing Cross. I wonder why?

Agree-- trusting a civil servant to sell property... They could go they probate root and appoint a lawyer but I imagine that's too slow / expensive vis-a-vis an auction. If you have the stomach for it, its probably the best way to buy a place assuming you are looking for a project.

Agree... To the OPs later question. Changes in the law mean that if you are anxious about childbirth you can insist on having a C-section; however, your clinician may first recommend counseling if they believe your concerns are unfounded. DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I found the hospital's ethos of using all means > necessary to get the baby out bizarre. They're so > anxious to avoid the miniscule increase in risk > for the baby the longer it stays in the womb, but > they don't consider the problems that failed > inductions, interventions and Csecs can cause - > let alone the implications for a woman who's left > feeling completely out of control of the birth > experience." > > I think it's unlikely that they are not entirely > familiar not only with the level of increased > risk, miniscule or otherwise, but also the > countervailing risks that you identify. What you > see as bizarre they will see as a policy based > squarely on the latest medical knowledge and > evidence. However, that doesn't mean that what is > right statistically is right for you in your > particular circumstances. My (vicarious) > experience of 2 births at Kings is that, if asked, > all the medical staff we encountered were happy to > explain the advice they were giving and, although > they were pretty forthright with their opinions, > we didn't feel unduly pressurised.

Housing associations seem to always sell via auction rather than on the open market. I can't imagine nowadays that's the best way to secure a price. All the same, 630k isn't bad for a place that needs work.

Agree. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The comments about snobbery / people being 'up > themselves' are interesting. Just going by this > forum, I would say that most of the traffic in > that regard is one way, and tends to involve > looking badly upon any new arrivals or residents > with a little money. I rarely hear people bad > mouthing those that have lived in the area a long > time or who are less well off. So I would argue > it's more about fear of new comers / change than > demonstrable snobbery on the part of the > 'interlopers'.

That seems nuts. Your income ratio to house price was 27x?!

East Dulwich is not like Clapham.

Exactly :) and I say that as someone who's been here for pushing 10 years... *Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it means that the last round of incomers > (who moved here several years ago) now feel that > they've been here long enough to trot out the same > kind of stuff that they've forgotten people said > about them back when they arrived. > > The king is dead. Long live the king.

Exactly-- where you live in London is so fraught with emotion I feel like people are excessively sneery about changing demographics.

People use the word smug in London in a way that's totally ridiculous. It's supposed to mean "having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements". In what way do people around here do that? Smug has just become shorthand for -- people have money.

Agree. A tutor proof test would be fairer. If that's not possible, then any pupil, regardless of their parents ability to pay, should be able to receive some test preparation support etc if their teachers think they have a shot. Anything else isn't meritocratic which defeats the whole idea behind grammars. With that said, I don't blame parents for doing what they feel they need to given the existing imperfections in the system.

She sounds dreadful. I've only met one person like that before. She took pleasure in making other people unhappy (she was in her 20s). I agree ignoring her and not letting her see that her behaviour is winding you up is probably the only thing that will make it abate. Agree with the garden access solution the other poster describes.

I actually prefer Forest Hill to Nunhead but then its horses for courses. If I were going to leave ED Honor Oak would definitely be top of the list

Yes, the pace of growth (whatever that will be) will ultimately dictate how quickly interest rates need to rise and the withdrawl of QE. My point was that strong growth will mitigate the financial impact of rising rates partial feed through on mortgage rates and therefore housing affordability. I think affordability will only come under serious pressure if we have significant rate rises that in turn increase mortgage rates significantly with no growth (stagflation) which I don't think most people are anticipating. For this reason, plus the fact that there isn't a 1 to 1 direct correlation between mortgage rates and the BofE rate I wouldn't bet on a massive decrease in house prices in the medium term. Of course, a million and one things could happen that can change that and anyone taking out a mortgage should make sure they can afford it if and when rates do increase without relying on making having tons more income. Simply, my base case isn't a London house price cash, that's all. I really feel for first time buyers. If we didn't buy years ago, there's no way we could afford a house in ED at our age. We got lucky (and luck is all it is) and are thankful. Overtime, London will become more like NY- the concentration of the very rich will continue to increase pushing out middle income workers to the home counties. 33% social housing means London won't ever be totally made up of the rich but it will be very polarised economically.

That's horrible aileking. I agree that if you are prudent you should be looking at if you could afford your mortgage if the rate were closer to 6% vs circa 4% today. Banks actually tell you want it would be at 7% and ask if you could afford that level when making your offer so no one can actually ignore what that looks like. However, if I were a first time buyer trying to decide to buy or wait to see if house prices in London collapse when interest rates increase, I would buy now as long as I could afford it. I have friends in that position and while there are no guarantees either way, as long as there remains a shortage of housing in London and assuming the UK doesn't enter into an extended episode of stagflation, I don't think anyone's plan for getting on the property ladder should involve waiting for prices to dramatically collapse. Edited to add-- circa 40% of people are on SVR rates so you really can't ignore that rate when assessing how expensive mortgages are at the moment.

Yes, maybe. Most people took for granted that the BofE's priority was growth rather than inflation so when they made such a definite statement (with caveats concerning 2.5% inflation) the market assumed they meant the opposite of what they said. However, no one thinks that the BofE will raise rates unless there is significant inflation so this only becomes a concern if you believe we are headed toward staglfation (high inflation with no growth) that will force the central bank to make a decision regarding priorities. I don't see that on the horizon. Part of the increase in interest rate expectations is the faster than expected growth figures that have come out since the announcement was made.

This conversation has finally really hit the nail on the head. When people talk about house prices and income ratios, they entirely forget to take into account interest rates. Due to persistent high inflation, interest rates used to need to be much higher than they have been over the last decade or two. The best measure regarding the affordability of housing is how much of a family?s disposable income goes towards housing themselves, not prices or income growth per se. Generally needing to spend more than 35% of net income is considered unaffordable and, in the UK, this ratio is breached primarily in the South East (16% of households are paying unaffordable housing costs) due to a shortage of house building- the population is increasing faster than the housing stock. Will this unaffordability figure increase dramatically? Who know but there are a few things to take into account: 1. High interest rates in the 70s and 80s were linked to very high rates if inflation (13% on average in the 70s hitting a peak of 25% one year!). Interest rates were high in part in an attempt to tackle this. Everything changed in 1990s when the central bank (both in the UK and many around the world) were explicitly give inflation targets and then later granted independence. This independence freed them from political manipulations of the interest rate and the money supply to try and influence the foreign exchange rate. Since that independence was granted and clear goal sets?managing price inflation and stimulating economic growth-- the interest rate landscape in this country has shifted dramatically. Suggesting we look to the 80s as a model of what interest rates might be in future misses the very fundamental changes that have occurred. 2. The Bank of England has clearly committed themselves to keeping interest rates low until economic growth is apace and unemployment is down. At times, the two goals of growth and price stability can be at odds on the BofE have clearly stated what their priority is regarding interest rate policy 3. Mortgage rates aren?t that low. While the Bank of England rate is very low, mortgage rates have not fallen proportionally (to the banks benefit unfortunately). Someone locking in a 5 year mortgage with a 15%-25% deposit could pay a minimum of 3.69%- 3.84%. The average standard variable rate has increased every year since the base rate was lowered to 50bps in 2009 and now stands at 4.35%. A return to pre-crisis interest rates wouldn?t be as dramatic an increase as you might expect just looking at the BoE rate.